LEGAL HUB

05/01/2026

05/01/2026

05/01/2026

22/03/2025

16/02/2025

*REFUSAL TO PAY A LAWYER FOR LEGAL SERVICES IS A SLAP ON THE FACE OF LEGAL PROFESSION*

The Supreme Court of Nigeria has held that when a legal practitioner offers to any one his professional duties and it was not done pro bono publico, that is, done for free for public good, he is entitled to be paid his charges. The Apex Court stated that failure to pay for the legal services is a slap on the face of this prestigious profession of law. This position was taken by the Court in the recent case of *MR. ALLEN EGBE v. AYODEJI ODU (2024) 18 NWLR (Pt.1970) 567 at 294, paras. E-F IDRIS, J.S.C* where it was held thus:

“It is saddening reading through the record of appeal, because the entire case appears to be a clear slap on the face of the legal profession in its entirety. Why do I say so? The appellants engaged the services of a barrister called to the Nigerian Bar in 1986, and he represented them in court on several occasions. The respondent provided before the trial court several text messages sent by the appellants wherein the 1st appellant begged and pleaded for more time to pay up the sum of money owed the respondent as professional fees, which the appellants never denied.
The appellants have argued that since they paid for the filing fees and expenses (flight tickets, accommodation and transportation) incurred during the case, the respondent is only entitled to “something” for his professional fees. What a slap on the face of this prestigious profession of law!!!

The trial court, after thoroughly dissecting the case, awarded the sum of N12,000,000 in favour of the respondent, including 10% interest on same from 1st August 2008 till 21st May 2012 when the judgment was given, and a further 10% interest per annum on the judgment sum with effect from 21st May 2012 till the judgment sum is liquidated. The judgment of the trial court was delivered on the 21st of May 2012.

Exhibit “K” is the bill of charges wherein the respondent stated how his services were rendered to the appellants. The appellants have argued that the respondent had reported them to the police and had called the judgment he obtained from the lower court a fraud, and thus could not benefit from a judgment he had condemned as a fraud.

I am disappointed at the interpretation the appellants and their counsel (who is a senior member in legal profession) had given to the letter dated the 25th January, 2010 written by the respondent. I am of the firm opinion that the respondent did not refer to the consent judgment obtained from the lower court as a fraud. What the respondent said was that the appellants got another lawyer to sign as counsel for them so that the respondent would not benefit or lay claim to helping in getting the judgment and thus be entitled to remuneration. In effect, the respondent never referred to the consent judgment of the lower court as a fraud.

Also, the appellants have repeatedly argued that they got a lot of lawyers involved in the case, so they could not pay the respondent the sum of money he demanded for. The appellants must be informed that it was totally up to them to get as many lawyers as they desired to help in prosecuting their case. But it is absolutely ridiculous to think that because they got a lot of lawyers to work on their case, they should not be made to pay each and every lawyer for the services rendered. It is inconsequential that other lawyers had to join the team in prosecuting the appellants’ case. This is no doubt a common practice. As long as every lawyer is paid his professional fees, there is no problem.”

22/11/2024

*Overtaking Military Convoy: Consequences Under Nigerian Law*

*Introduction*

Overtaking a military convoy is a serious offense in Nigeria, punishable under various laws. This article examines the consequences of overtaking a military convoy under Nigerian law.

*Relevant Laws*

1. *The Armed Forces Act (AFA) 2004*: Section 119 prohibits obstructing or interfering with military operations, including convoys.
2. *The Road Traffic Act 2004*: Section 35 prohibits reckless driving, including overtaking military convoys.
3. *The National Security Agencies Act 2004*: Section 15 empowers security agencies to take necessary actions to maintain national security.

*Consequences of Overtaking Military Convoy*

1. *Arrest and Detention*: Security personnel may arrest and detain anyone who overtakes a military convoy.
2. *Prosecution*: Offenders may be prosecuted under the AFA, Road Traffic Act, or National Security Agencies Act.
3. *Imprisonment*: Conviction may result in imprisonment for up to 5 years (AFA) or 2 years (Road Traffic Act).
4. *Fine*: Offenders may be fined up to ₦50,000 (AFA) or ₦20,000 (Road Traffic Act).
5. *Vehicle Confiscation*: The vehicle used to overtake the convoy may be confiscated.
6. *Tort Liability*: Offenders may be liable for damages or injuries caused to military personnel or equipment.

*Court Rulings*

In *Aoku v. State (2017)*, the Court of Appeal upheld a 5-year imprisonment sentence for overtaking a military convoy.

*Precautions*

To avoid consequences:

1. Exercise caution when approaching military convoys.
2. Maintain a safe distance.
3. Follow traffic rules and regulations.
4. Avoid reckless driving.

*Conclusion*

Overtaking a military convoy is a serious offense in Nigeria, carrying severe consequences under various laws. It is essential to exercise caution and respect military operations to avoid prosecution and punishment.

06/11/2024

*Surety Known To Me Unknown To Nigerian Law*

•By Douglas Ogbankwa,Esq. [email protected]

In the course of my job as a lawyer, I have come across several cases where Law enforcement officers arrest people because they signed a purported commitment called, “Surety Known To Me”, which is not a crime encapsulated in any written law , any where in Nigeria.
To situate the issues better, one of the components of the Rule of Law, is legality: that is to say enforcement of the law must be contingent on the existence of a crime in a codified (written ) law. It is codification of a crime that establishes same.
What does the word “know” mean?
*To have developed a relationship with (someone) through meeting and spending time with them; be familiar or friendly with.Example is “He knew and respected Laura*.”

How can it possibly be that “to have developed a relationship with (someone) through meeting and spending time with them; be familiar or friendly with” be a crime known to law in Nigeria?
To know a person is not a crime, it is a social skill. Let us not turn Law enforcement into a joke or some thing that occurs according to our whims and caprices. It will diminish the respect that individuals and institutions have for law enforcement agencies in Nigeria.
The leadership of law enforcement agencies in Nigeria should therefore give instructions to all their formations to stop this very embarrassing occurrence. The grant of bail is as provided for by law and that law does not even give agencies the powers to impose conditions .The Administration of Criminal Justice Law, (2015 ) on the grant or refusal of Bail provides thus:
Section 158 Administration of Criminal Justice Act 2015 When a person who is suspected to have committed an offence or is accused of an offence is arrested or detained, or appears or is brought before a court, he shall, subject to the provisions of this Part, be entitled to bail.
The provision of the law, as indicated above, is the only thing that the law allows law enforcement agencies to do.
Bail is not a privilege, it is a constitutional right, it is provided for in Section 36, Chapter 4 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended).
As earlier indicated, for a person to be arrested, you must have committed a crime provided for by law. In a Particular case , Romanus Okafor Esq., of the NBA Benin Branch, got damages against some law enforcement agents for him being held for about 2 hours for the non existent crime of “Surety Known to Me.” The Court granted him 200 thousand naira as damages , 100 thousand Naira per hour. While executing the garnishee order granted later in the case, the court granted him an additional one million Naira for enforcement of the judgment, which was now to be borne by the Law Enforcement Agents.This will now be the case in Nigeria, if law enforcement agencies do not clean up their houses .It is indeed now case law that there is no crime known as “Surety Known To Me”.To know a person is not a crime .Let us not trivialize Law Enforcement.
On the illegality of ‘Surety Known to me ‘, Section 36 (8) of the Constitution of Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended ), provides thus: No person shall be held to be guilty of a criminal offence on account of any act or omission that did not, at the time it took place, constitute such an offence, and no penalty shall be imposed for any criminal offence heavier than the penalty in force at the time the offence was committed.
From the analysis espoused above, it is obvious that there is no crime in the Nigerian jurisprudence with the appellation “Surety Known To Me.”.A recognizance for Bail is a Bond ,tied to the amount a person says he will forfeit , if the suspect absconds and the Law Enforcement Agency will sue for the amount in Court, if the suspect absconds , it is when the Surety does pay after Judgment,that you can hold him for contempt of court and he can go to jail. For this see the case of Dr. Monday Onyekachi Ubani v. Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC).

This practice must stop forthwith and this can only be done by way of a circular , memos or orders by the heads of agencies to their subordinates. The leadership of law enforcement agencies in Nigeria should therefore give instructions to all their formations to stop this very embarrassing occurrence. The grant of bail is as provided for by law and that law does not even give agencies the powers to impose conditions .
This anomaly must be halted to stem the tide and stop the illegal harassment and intimidation of innocent citizens.
Nigeria is a Society guided by Laws and not the whims and caprices of people who are bestowed with powers by our Laws.
The Administration of Criminal Justice Act (Federal ) and Laws (State ), give citizens the right to sue an errant Investigating Police Officer and his bosses directly in their individual capacities , if they violated the law or cut corners .
The Courts should also strive to protect citizens’ rights as that is the only safeguard against lawlessness and impunity .Citizens are vulnerable to the trappings of power of security agencies.Some of them are so weak that they lack the capacity to challenge the system. The State must step in by finding a way to interrogate the Policing Processes in order to give succour to weak and tame strong .
The Bar Association should as of necessity formulate policies and set up bodies to interface with the system to curb some of these excesses .This is in symmetry with the main objective of the Bar Association which is *Protecting the Rule of Law*
As Chief Gani Fawehimwin SAN of Blessed Memory said : *The Legal Profession ought to be and must strive to remain the dependable bastion of hope , help and succour to the repressed, the oppressed and the supresed in our Society*

About the Author:Douglas Ogbankwa, Esq. @gmail.com , is the Convener of the Intellectual Hub, Security Situation Room and Vanguard for the Independence of the Judiciary.

01/11/2024

✅✅ *POSITION OF THE LAW*

*GTB PLC v. YUNUSA*

(2024) LPELR-62900(CA)

*Issue*
BANKING LAW - BANKER-CUSTOMER RELATIONSHIP -

_Circumstance(s) where a bank will be held to have been negligent/breached the duty of care owed to its customer(s)_

"My Lords, having regard to the evidence adduced by the parties before the trial Court, it is my view that the Appellant was negligent in placing restrictions on the Respondent's accounts domiciled with it.

This inflicted serious injury or damage on the Respondent. The Respondent has proved in evidence that the Appellant owed him a duty of care.

There was a breach of that duty and the breach caused him injury or damage. See the case of DHL INTERNATIONAL (NIG.) LIMITED VS EZE UZOAMAKA (2020) 16 NWLR PT. 1751 AT 457. ?

In this appeal, the Appellant was served a Garnishee Order Nisi issued by District Court Mpape FCT, Abuja, attaching the accounts of three judgment debtors in the Appellant named as a 3rd Garnishee to satisfy judgment debt in favour of a judgment creditor in a Judgment delivered by the said District Court Mpape.

Though upon service of a Garnishee Order Nisi issued by a Court of law duly constituted, a named Garnishee is enjoined to comply with the terms of the said Garnishee Order Nisi having regard to the provisions of Section 287(3) of 1999 Constitution as amended.

However, the Garnishee must carefully study the Order Nisi closely, look at its data base and ascertain whether or not the judgment debtor named in the Order Nisi maintains an account with it.

Where the judgment debtor maintains an account with it, the Order Nisi served on the Garnishee is the authority for it to restrict or attach the said account. Where the account is properly funded, the Garnishee is enjoined to take steps to inform the Court by filing a verifying affidavit disclosing the status of the account to the Court to abide by whatever Order the Court will make on the return date. ?

If the judgment debtor has an account with it but the account is not properly funded to satisfy the judgment sum, the Garnishee will then within 14 days file an affidavit to show cause why the Order Nisi should not be made absolute and on the return date, if the Court is satisfied with its disclosure in the affidavit to show cause, the Garnishee may be discharged from the garnishee proceedings.

However, upon service of the Garnishee Order Nisi, the Garnishee cannot restrict or attach the account of its customer that is not mentioned on the Garnishee Order Nisi. This is where due diligence comes in.

The Garnishee Order Nisi led to the accounts of the Respondent being restricted which is exhibit C located at pages 57 and 58 of the records of appeal. Though from the record of proceedings at pages 163 and 164 of the records, it is referred to as exhibit A. I will however take it as exhibit C since the learned trial Judge referred to it as such in the judgment subject of this appeal.

In the Garnishee Order Nisi, it was the account of YUNUSA MOHAMMED AUWAL, one of the judgment debtors, that was ordered to be attached or restricted. However, the Appellant negligently restricted or attached the account of YUNUSA MOHAMMED LAWAL, the Respondent in this matter. ?YUNUSA MOHAMMED AUWAL is not YUNUSA MOHAMMED LAWAL. They are two different persons.

The Appellant's witness, Bartholomew T. Medupin, not being the District Court, Mpape that made the Garnishee Order Nisi cannot say that there was a typographical error in the Garnishee Order Nisi.

His evidence in this regard is a documentary hearsay which is not credible. The Appellant ought not to have assumed that YUNUSA MOHAMMED AUWAL is the same person as YUNUSA MOHAMMED LAWAL.

The Appellant ought to have sought clarifications from the District Court that made the order and the outcome of the process of clarifications would then have determined whether or not the accounts of YUNUSA MOHAMMED LAWAL would have been restricted.

I agree entirely with trial Court that the Appellant was careless and negligent in the way and the manner it handled the accounts of Respondent on 3/2/2020 that led to the wrongful and unjustifiable attachment of the accounts that exposed the Respondent and his family to an untold hardship for upwards of three months 3/2/2020 - 13/5/2020.

I agree also with the trial Court that the Appellant failed to exercise due diligence before restricting the Respondent's accounts. ?My Lords, contrary to the submissions of the Appellant that the trial Court ignored exhibit C which is documentary in nature but instead relied on oral evidence of DW1. This is not correct.

It is however my view that the oral evidence of DW1 under cross examination that the accounts the Appellant attached are that of YUNUSA MOHAMMED LAWAL and not the YUNUSA MOHAMMED AUWAL complements exhibit C.

This is so because the district Court's Garnishee Order Nisi clearly ordered the Appellant to attach the accounts of YUNUSA MOHAMMED AUWAL and not the accounts of YUNUSA MOHAMMED LAWAL. If YUNUSA MOHAMMED AUWAL did not maintain any account with the Appellant, instead of attaching the accounts of the Respondent, the lawful steps for the Appellant to take would have been to file an affidavit to show cause that YUNUSA MOHAMMED AUWAL did not maintain any account with it, the Appellant would have been struck out from the garnishee proceedings.

I think the trial Court was right in awarding the sum of N5,000,000.00 to assuage the Respondent for the pain inflicted on him for unlawful restriction of his accounts for upwards of 3 months. ?

The Appellant did not act within the ambits of the law when it unlawfully attached the accounts of the Respondent claiming it complied with exhibit C.

The Appellant was entirely on its own when it acted outside the confines of exhibit C.

Therefore the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of LABOUR PARTY VS INEC (2009) LPELR 1732 that followed its earlier decision in case of OBA ALADEGBEMI VS FASANMADE (1988) 3 NWLR PT. 81 at 131 was cited by the Appellant out of context.

The trial Court was right in granting the declaratory reliefs sought. See the case of ONWUKA VS EDIALA (1989) 1 NWLR (PT. 96) 183 at 208 - 209. This is so because negligence is the tort that protects a person from the careless action of another that can injure or harm him.

The law places a duty of care upon such person that once he breaches that duty and injury results therefrom, damages can always be claimed as compensation. See ODULATE VS FIRST BANK (2019) LPELR 47353. ?

I agree with the learned trial Judge in his well-considered judgment that the Appellant being an established bank with seasoned legal practitioners as its legal advisers was in a position to have known that the name on the said Order Nisi has AUWAL and not LAWAL as a surname.

These are two different names. This is so notwithstanding the fact that the first and middle names are the same. The Appellant was in breach of the duty of care to the Respondent. I agree with the trial Judge that the Appellant's negligence in attaching the accounts of the Respondent without being a judgment debtor in any proceedings exposed him to an unreasonable financial hardship and trauma during the excruciating period of the lockdown due to non-access to his accounts including his salary account domiciled with the Appellant." Per OKON EFRETI ABANG, JCA (Pp 18 - 24 Paras C - C)

31/10/2024

Share your legal headache and be advised

13/10/2024

: Cattylove- Cattylove Nigerian Passport Application Goes Digital: Step by Step Guide on How to Apply from Home - Your Source for the Latest Trends and Insights % "Explore the world of fashion, lifestyle, tech, and more at CattyLove. Discover the latest trends, expert insights, and inspiration for a...

13/10/2024

DOGARA v. PDP & ORS (2024) (CA)

DEFECTION TO ANOTHER POLITICAL PARTY - Consequence of defection and/or resignation of members of the legislature to another political party

Online encyclopedia of Nigerian laws, rules of court, law school notes, LL. B Notes, judgments and case law, principles and authorities.

13/10/2024

*SSS Brokers Peace As NNPCL To Allow IPMAN Load N15bn Worth Of Petrol At Reduced Rates*

_IPMAN had revealed on Thursday that the cost of petrol from the Dangote Petroleum Refinery to NNPC was about N898/litre, but noted that NNPC was selling the same product to independent marketers at N1,010/litre in Lagos._

WhatsApp /+234 8068191709 Join Our WhatsApp Channels whatsapp.com/channel/0029Va5ZqpX0VycLPv9r9W1V

https://thenigerialawyer.com/sss-brokers-peace-as-nnpcl-to-allow-ipman-load-n15bn-worth-of-petrol-at-reduced-rates/