The High Court of the Federal Capital Territory has finally
delivered judgement in the case between Jibrin Samuel Okutepa SAN
(Practicing under the name and style of JS Okutepa SAN and company)
and Rt. Hon. Iorwaashe Herman Hembe with Suit No:
FTC/HC/CV/2071/2016.
The matter which was held at Maitama Court 5, under the
Abuja Judicial division centred on retainership and recovery of
charges.
The Defendant who is a duly elected member of the house of
representative representing Konshisha/Vandeikya Federal
constituency of Benue State, had around 2012-2013 retained the
legal service of the plaintiff to defend him in some cases as well
as for the prosecution of cases at the High Court and the Court of
appeal. The Defendant failed and or neglected to settle the
plaintiff’s legal fee in the aggregate sum of ₦20,000,000.00
(Twenty Million Naira) despite demands.
Aggrieved by the Defendant’s neglect, the plaintiff instituted
the suit wherein he claimed for the unpaid sum of ₦20,000,000.00
(Twenty Million Naira) for service rendered by the plaintiff.
According to the plaintiff’s witness statement on oath dated the
28th June, 2016, the defendant had briefed the Plaintiff to defend
him in two cases in which two different charges were given. The
first which was Charge No. FTC/HC/CR/77/2012, FEDERAL
REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA VS. HON. IORWASHE HERMAN HEMBE AND
OTHERS in which the Defendant was charged the sum of
₦10,000,000.00 (Ten Million Naira) as well as appeal no.
CA/A/479/2013, Hon. Iorwashe Herman Hembe V. Federal Republic of
Nigeria in which the sum of ₦10,000,000.00 (Ten Million Naira) was
charged as professional fees thereby totalling the whole sum to
twenty million naira.
The plaintiff further argued that he forwarded to the defendant
his bill of charges for both suits which copy was admitted in
evidence as Exhibit P.W.1A1-5.
The Plaintiff therefore urged the Court to grant the reliefs
claimed by him against the Defendant. He contended that he had
proved his case and was entitled to judgement based on the reliefs
sought.
Learned Silk relied heavily on the decision in ALHAJI O. A.
OYEKANMI v. NATIONAL ELECTRICITY POWER AUTHORITY (2000) 15 N.W.L.R
(PART 690) page 414.
The court per his Lordship Hon. Justice O. O. Good luck, after
carefully examining the decision in the cited case and after
considering it opposite to the facts and circumstance of the
current action and well as the facts in the case in entirety ruled
in favour of the plaintiff against the defendant who had even
failed to enter any defence.
The court after stating the conditions to be fulfilled before a
legal practitioner can take up an action to recover charges from a
client, noted that there was noting through the evidence that shows
that the presumption of regularity of the said exhibit was
defeated. In the words of the court:
“The Supreme Court held at page 432 in the Oyekanmi case
that by virtue of the provisions of section 16(2) of the Legal
Practitioner Act, 1975, in order for a legal practitioner to be
able to begin an action to recover his fees upon a bill of charges
he has satisfy three conditions, viz:
a) He must prepare a bill of charge or a bill for the
charges which show duly particularized the principal items of his
claim.
b) He must serve his client with the bill, and
c) He must allow a period of one month to elapse from the
date the bill was served
This Court has exhaustively examined the bill of charges,
Exhibit P.W.1A1-5 and this Court is not left in doubt that the
particulars of the professional services rendered has been
articulately reflected in the bill of charges. There is no evidence
impugning the presumption of regularity of Exhibit
P.W.1A1-5.
As hitherto noted the Defendant has failed and neglected to
file a defence. This being the case this Court will dee the facts
asserted by the plaintiff in his pleadings as being true.
In summary, this Court is of the view and will so hold that
the plaintiff is entitled to judgment in this suit. I will now
proceed to examine the plaintiff’s reliefs. Leg one
succeeds.
It is hereby declared that the Plaintiff earned and is
entitled to be paid the sum of ₦20,000,000.00 (Twenty Million
Naira) for professional services rendered by the Plaintiff for the
Defendant, which sum the Defendant has failed, refused and
neglected to pay despite being served with the bill of charges and
notwithstanding repeated demands.
The Defendant is accordingly ordered to pay the professional
fees of ₦20,000,000.00 (Twenty Million Naira) rendered by the
Plaintiff forthwith. It is further ordered that the Defendant shall
pay the sum of 10% per annum on the Judgement sum of ₦20,000,000.00
(Twenty Million Naira) from the date hereof until the entire sum is
fully paid.”
The judgement of the court has once more affirmed that legal
practitioners can recovery charges from clients who are not willing
to pay in so far as the laid down procedure is followed to the
letter.
The High Court of the Federal Capital Territory has finally
delivered judgement in the case between Jibrin Samuel Okutepa SAN
(Practicing under the name and style of JS Okutepa SAN and company)
and Rt. Hon. Iorwaashe Herman Hembe with Suit No:
FTC/HC/CV/2071/2016.
The matter which was held at Maitama Court 5, under the
Abuja Judicial division centred on retainership and recovery of
charges.
The Defendant who is a duly elected member of the house of
representative representing Konshisha/Vandeikya Federal
constituency of Benue State, had around 2012-2013 retained the
legal service of the plaintiff to defend him in some cases as well
as for the prosecution of cases at the High Court and the Court of
appeal. The Defendant failed and or neglected to settle the
plaintiff’s legal fee in the aggregate sum of ₦20,000,000.00
(Twenty Million Naira) despite demands.
Aggrieved by the Defendant’s neglect, the plaintiff instituted
the suit wherein he claimed for the unpaid sum of ₦20,000,000.00
(Twenty Million Naira) for service rendered by the plaintiff.
According to the plaintiff’s witness statement on oath dated the
28th June, 2016, the defendant had briefed the Plaintiff to defend
him in two cases in which two different charges were given. The
first which was Charge No. FTC/HC/CR/77/2012, FEDERAL
REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA VS. HON. IORWASHE HERMAN HEMBE AND
OTHERS in which the Defendant was charged the sum of
₦10,000,000.00 (Ten Million Naira) as well as appeal no.
CA/A/479/2013, Hon. Iorwashe Herman Hembe V. Federal Republic of
Nigeria in which the sum of ₦10,000,000.00 (Ten Million Naira) was
charged as professional fees thereby totalling the whole sum to
twenty million naira.
The plaintiff further argued that he forwarded to the defendant
his bill of charges for both suits which copy was admitted in
evidence as Exhibit P.W.1A1-5.
The Plaintiff therefore urged the Court to grant the reliefs
claimed by him against the Defendant. He contended that he had
proved his case and was entitled to judgement based on the reliefs
sought.
Learned Silk relied heavily on the decision in ALHAJI O. A.
OYEKANMI v. NATIONAL ELECTRICITY POWER AUTHORITY (2000) 15 N.W.L.R
(PART 690) page 414.
The court per his Lordship Hon. Justice O. O. Good luck, after
carefully examining the decision in the cited case and after
considering it opposite to the facts and circumstance of the
current action and well as the facts in the case in entirety ruled
in favour of the plaintiff against the defendant who had even
failed to enter any defence.
The court after stating the conditions to be fulfilled before a
legal practitioner can take up an action to recover charges from a
client, noted that there was noting through the evidence that shows
that the presumption of regularity of the said exhibit was
defeated. In the words of the court:
“The Supreme Court held at page 432 in the Oyekanmi case
that by virtue of the provisions of section 16(2) of the Legal
Practitioner Act, 1975, in order for a legal practitioner to be
able to begin an action to recover his fees upon a bill of charges
he has satisfy three conditions, viz:
a) He must prepare a bill of charge or a bill for the
charges which show duly particularized the principal items of his
claim.
b) He must serve his client with the bill, and
c) He must allow a period of one month to elapse from the
date the bill was served
This Court has exhaustively examined the bill of charges,
Exhibit P.W.1A1-5 and this Court is not left in doubt that the
particulars of the professional services rendered has been
articulately reflected in the bill of charges. There is no evidence
impugning the presumption of regularity of Exhibit
P.W.1A1-5.
As hitherto noted the Defendant has failed and neglected to
file a defence. This being the case this Court will dee the facts
asserted by the plaintiff in his pleadings as being true.
In summary, this Court is of the view and will so hold that
the plaintiff is entitled to judgment in this suit. I will now
proceed to examine the plaintiff’s reliefs. Leg one
succeeds.
It is hereby declared that the Plaintiff earned and is
entitled to be paid the sum of ₦20,000,000.00 (Twenty Million
Naira) for professional services rendered by the Plaintiff for the
Defendant, which sum the Defendant has failed, refused and
neglected to pay despite being served with the bill of charges and
notwithstanding repeated demands.
The Defendant is accordingly ordered to pay the professional
fees of ₦20,000,000.00 (Twenty Million Naira) rendered by the
Plaintiff forthwith. It is further ordered that the Defendant shall
pay the sum of 10% per annum on the Judgement sum of ₦20,000,000.00
(Twenty Million Naira) from the date hereof until the entire sum is
fully paid.”
The judgement of the court has once more affirmed that legal
practitioners can recovery charges from clients who are not willing
to pay in so far as the laid down procedure is followed to the
letter.