The clean bill of health given to Kunle Ogunba by the
Nigerian Bar Association is an invitation to the Legal
Practitioners’ Privileges Committee to restore his rank of Senior
Advocate of Nigeria, writes Davidson Iriekpen.
Again, the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) under the leadership
of Mr. A. B, Mahmoud (SAN) last week, cleared a Lagos lawyer, Mr.
Kunle Ogunba, of the alleged professional misconduct levelled
against him by Honeywell Group Limited.
> In a letter dated February 20, 2018, which was signed by
the General Secretary of the NBA, Mr. Isiaka Abiola Olagunju, the
association said it had dismissed the petition by Honeywell for
lack of prima facie case of professional misconduct against the
lawyer.
Recall that the Legal Practitioners’ Privileges Committee (LPPC)
had recently stripped Ogunba of his Senior Advocate of Nigeria rank
on the basis of a petition written by Honeywell Group alleging that
he filed multiple suits against the group of companies and thereby
abused court process. The LPPC had in a statement signed by its
Secretary and Registrar of the Supreme Court, Hadizatu Mustapha,
said the withdrawal of Ogunba’s rank and privileges was based on a
petition by Honeywell Group.
“The misconduct alleged consists of the institution of
multiplicity of proceedings before different judges of the Federal
High Court on the same subject with the deliberate aim of abusing
the process of court and derailing the course of justice. After a
thorough investigation of the petition by the sub-committee set up
by the LPPC, it was decided that the petition is meritorious.
Consequently, the LPPC at its 129th plenary meeting had withdrawn
the rank of Senior Advocate of Nigeria from Ogunba and other
privileges attached to the rank forthwith,” LPPC explained.
> Before the action by the LPDC, the NBA under the leadership
of Mr. Austine Alegeh (SAN) had cleared Ogunba of any wrongdoing in
the petition against him. The body in a letter dated August 5, 2016
and signed by its then General Secretary Mazi Afam Osigwe, and
addressed to Honeywell, said after carefully reading the firm’s
petition, it found that it did not disclose any alleged infraction
of the Rules of Professional Conduct 2007 by Ogunba. It said it was
satisfied that the suits the lawyer filed did not amount to an
abuse of court process as the companies were separate entities and
that the cases were not in respect of the same facts nor did they
seek the same reliefs.
The NBA listed the cases, including Ecobank vs Honeywell Flour
Mills Plc, Ecobank vs Siloam Global Services Limited, Ecobank vs
Anchorage Leisures, Ecobank vs Honeywell Group Ltd, among
others.
“We regret to inform you that a careful reading of the petition
failed to disclose any alleged infraction of the Rules of
Professional Conduct 2007 in respect of which Ogunba could be
called upon to offer an explanation. It is a principle of law that
companies are separate legal entities capable of suing and being
sued.
“Placing this principle side by side your allegation of abuse of
court process, we are satisfied the cases referred to as well as
the court processes attached by your good-selves failed to show the
existence of a case involving same parties in respect of same facts
and seeking same reliefs,” NBA said.
The associations listed the suits as Ecobank Nigeria Limited vs
Anchorage Leisures Ltd & 2 Ors v (FHC/L/CS/1219/2015); Ecobank
Plc vs Honeywell Flour Mills Plc (FHC/L/CP/1569/2015), Mr. Oba
Otudeko vs Ecobank Nigeria Limited (FHC/L/BK/19/2015), Ecobank
Nigeria Limited vs Siloam Global Services Ltd (FHC/L/CP/1572/2015),
Ecobank Nigeria Limited vs Anchorage Leisures Ltd (FHC/L/CP/
1570/2015), Ecobank Nigeria Limited vs Honeywell Group Ltd
(FHC/L/CP/1571/2015) and Ecobank Nigeria Limited vs Honeywell Flour
Mills Plc (FHC/L/CP/ 1689/2015).
“It is difficult to concede to the allegation that the suits
amount to abuse of court process upon which a disciplinary
proceeding should commence,” NBA said.
According to the association, the suits by Otudeko and Anchorage
Leisures seek a declaration that they are no longer indebted to
Ecobank and that the bank should be restrained from publishing
their names as bad debtors. It said it found that Ecobank’s actions
against Honeywell Flour Mills and Honeywell Group were petitions
filed consecutively for winding-up proceedings against them, but
were later discontinued to correct anomalies in them. It added that
the Ecobank’s suits against Siloam Global Services and Anchorage
Leisures involve petitions for winding-up “against the two
different companies.”
NBA said: “The fact the companies may have common ownership or
directors does not make them the same entity or preclude the
presentation of petitions against them if counsel believes grounds
exist for doing so. A careful examination of the court processes
filed by parties at the various suits indicates differences in
either parties or reliefs sought, which defeats your (Honeywell’s)
allegation of abuse of court process.”
NBA said a Court of Appeal judgment which Honeywell attached to
the petition “did not make any pronouncement against the respondent
(Ogunba) on the issue of abuse of court process,” According to it,
the appellate court did not indict Ogunba, therefore, the judgment
would “not be used as a basis for coming to the conclusion that
grounds exist for commencing disciplinary hearing against the
respondent.
“The respondent’s actions are in our respectful view in line
with the duty of a counsel to do everything which in the exercise
of his discretion he thinks best for the general interest of his
client, which cannot be fettered by subjecting him to disciplinary
proceedings. The respondent owed his client a duty to take all
lawful steps to directly and or indirectly represent his client and
or get the best in the circumstance for his client in reliance on
the best of his professional ability.
“We are of the informed view that the actions and or decisions
taken by the respondent were not only authorised by his instruction
but were made in the course of an attempt at arriving at an
amicable settlement in the matter. The respondent’s actions in the
course of representing his client are instilled by his duty to get
the best for his client and do not impugn the integrity of the
legal profession.
“We are, therefore, of the considered belief that the
allegations contained in the petition under reference do not
contain facts indicating any infraction of the Rules of
Professional Conduct. In the light of the foregoing, we will be
unable to further Inquire into the matter by forwarding the
petition to the LPDC. The petition is hereby dismissed as it lacks
merit,” NBA said.
In his own defence, Ogunba had claimed that the suits were
against the individual companies and did not amount to an abuse.
Besides, he said Honeywell’s suit was “a bid to perpetually tie the
hands” of his client. He further told the LPPC that his client’s
decision to file several actions against individual companies
within Honeywell Group was supported by judicial authorities.
> The lawyer also told the LPPC that the suits did not have
the same parties and therefore did not amount to an abuse as
alleged. “The suits have to be separate because winding up petition
is ad-hominem to each individual company and can thus not be lumped
together by a collective action,” Ogunba added.
Why observers are wondering why the LPDC took the decision
against Ogunba when the NBA had cleared him of any wrongdoing, the
latest clearance by the NBA has again shown that the legal
disciplinary body was bias in its decision to strip the insolvency
lawyer of his SAN rank. To them, even though many have argued that
the LPDC is not bound by the decision of the NBA and that the fact
that Ogunba was cleared by NBA does not mean the LPDC should accept
the clearance, it was simply bizarre that the same petition could
produce different judgments when the facts and evidence are the
same.
> Many legal pundits have submitted that the fact the NBA
would clear the lawyer of any wrongdoing and get sanctioned by the
LPDC showed that the legal disciplinary body was put under pressure
to arrive at the decision. They also believed that the LPDC
committee did not carefully examine the respondent’s reply,
otherwise, the outcome naturally should have been the same. The
pundits concluded that the latest clearance by the NBA may have
shown that the committee the LPDC appointed to investigate the
petition did not do a thorough job.
Their submission is that the cases that Ogunba was said to have
filed were all in order. They stated that the fact that Honeywell
is a group of companies and owned by one man (Otudeko) does not
mean that Ogunba needed to file one suit.
Others believe that this is the first time that the NBA would
clear a lawyer of misconduct allegations and the LPDC would still
go ahead to sanction the person. They are equally surprised why the
LPDC would use abuse of due process to cure another abuse of court
process?
To further vindicate Ogunba, when one of the cases came up for
hearing in court recently, Honeywell Group Chairman Dr Oba Otudeko,
admitted to Justice Mohammed Idris of the Federal High Court in
Lagos that his companies owed Ecobank Nigeria Limited individually,
but that the debt had been repaid. In his witness statement on oath
filed before the judge, the business mogul said the firms jointly
negotiated with the bank on the repayment terms.
Justice Idris had, at the instance of Ecobank’s lawyer Mr.
Divine Agbua, subpoenaed Otudeko to testify in an alleged
N5.5billion debt suit between three of his companies and the bank.
The companies – Anchorage Leisures Ltd, Siloam Global Ltd and
Honeywell Flour Mills Plc – are praying the court to hold that they
are not indebted to Ecobank.
In his witness statement on Oath, Otudeko admitted that his
companies owed the bank separately. He maintained that his
companies had paid N3.5billion as of December 12, 2013 as the full
and final payment for the N5.5billion debt as agreed by the parties
in a July 22, 2013 meeting.
He said: “The plaintiffs were individual customers of the
defendant (Ecobank) and had personal outstanding exposures to the
defendant. In view of the fact that Honeywell Group Limited is the
parent company of the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs under the auspices
of the Honeywell Group, led by me, opened up negotiations to settle
the then outstanding indebtedness of the plaintiffs to the
defendant.”
With the foregoing, analysts have called on the LPDC to redeem
itself by carefully examining the petition and restoring Ogunba’s
SAN title in the interest of justice.
Quote
It is difficult to concede to the allegation that the suits amount
to abuse of court process upon which a disciplinary proceeding
should commence
NBA President, A.B. Mahmoud
Tobi Soniyi. Deputy Editor/Group Politics Editor. THISDAY. 35
Creeks Road, Apapa, Lagos
Culled From ThisDay
The clean bill of health given to Kunle Ogunba by the
Nigerian Bar Association is an invitation to the Legal
Practitioners’ Privileges Committee to restore his rank of Senior
Advocate of Nigeria, writes Davidson Iriekpen.
Again, the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) under the leadership
of Mr. A. B, Mahmoud (SAN) last week, cleared a Lagos lawyer, Mr.
Kunle Ogunba, of the alleged professional misconduct levelled
against him by Honeywell Group Limited.
> In a letter dated February 20, 2018, which was signed by
the General Secretary of the NBA, Mr. Isiaka Abiola Olagunju, the
association said it had dismissed the petition by Honeywell for
lack of prima facie case of professional misconduct against the
lawyer.
Recall that the Legal Practitioners’ Privileges Committee (LPPC)
had recently stripped Ogunba of his Senior Advocate of Nigeria rank
on the basis of a petition written by Honeywell Group alleging that
he filed multiple suits against the group of companies and thereby
abused court process. The LPPC had in a statement signed by its
Secretary and Registrar of the Supreme Court, Hadizatu Mustapha,
said the withdrawal of Ogunba’s rank and privileges was based on a
petition by Honeywell Group.
“The misconduct alleged consists of the institution of
multiplicity of proceedings before different judges of the Federal
High Court on the same subject with the deliberate aim of abusing
the process of court and derailing the course of justice. After a
thorough investigation of the petition by the sub-committee set up
by the LPPC, it was decided that the petition is meritorious.
Consequently, the LPPC at its 129th plenary meeting had withdrawn
the rank of Senior Advocate of Nigeria from Ogunba and other
privileges attached to the rank forthwith,” LPPC explained.
> Before the action by the LPDC, the NBA under the leadership
of Mr. Austine Alegeh (SAN) had cleared Ogunba of any wrongdoing in
the petition against him. The body in a letter dated August 5, 2016
and signed by its then General Secretary Mazi Afam Osigwe, and
addressed to Honeywell, said after carefully reading the firm’s
petition, it found that it did not disclose any alleged infraction
of the Rules of Professional Conduct 2007 by Ogunba. It said it was
satisfied that the suits the lawyer filed did not amount to an
abuse of court process as the companies were separate entities and
that the cases were not in respect of the same facts nor did they
seek the same reliefs.
The NBA listed the cases, including Ecobank vs Honeywell Flour
Mills Plc, Ecobank vs Siloam Global Services Limited, Ecobank vs
Anchorage Leisures, Ecobank vs Honeywell Group Ltd, among
others.
“We regret to inform you that a careful reading of the petition
failed to disclose any alleged infraction of the Rules of
Professional Conduct 2007 in respect of which Ogunba could be
called upon to offer an explanation. It is a principle of law that
companies are separate legal entities capable of suing and being
sued.
“Placing this principle side by side your allegation of abuse of
court process, we are satisfied the cases referred to as well as
the court processes attached by your good-selves failed to show the
existence of a case involving same parties in respect of same facts
and seeking same reliefs,” NBA said.
The associations listed the suits as Ecobank Nigeria Limited vs
Anchorage Leisures Ltd & 2 Ors v (FHC/L/CS/1219/2015); Ecobank
Plc vs Honeywell Flour Mills Plc (FHC/L/CP/1569/2015), Mr. Oba
Otudeko vs Ecobank Nigeria Limited (FHC/L/BK/19/2015), Ecobank
Nigeria Limited vs Siloam Global Services Ltd (FHC/L/CP/1572/2015),
Ecobank Nigeria Limited vs Anchorage Leisures Ltd (FHC/L/CP/
1570/2015), Ecobank Nigeria Limited vs Honeywell Group Ltd
(FHC/L/CP/1571/2015) and Ecobank Nigeria Limited vs Honeywell Flour
Mills Plc (FHC/L/CP/ 1689/2015).
“It is difficult to concede to the allegation that the suits
amount to abuse of court process upon which a disciplinary
proceeding should commence,” NBA said.
According to the association, the suits by Otudeko and Anchorage
Leisures seek a declaration that they are no longer indebted to
Ecobank and that the bank should be restrained from publishing
their names as bad debtors. It said it found that Ecobank’s actions
against Honeywell Flour Mills and Honeywell Group were petitions
filed consecutively for winding-up proceedings against them, but
were later discontinued to correct anomalies in them. It added that
the Ecobank’s suits against Siloam Global Services and Anchorage
Leisures involve petitions for winding-up “against the two
different companies.”
NBA said: “The fact the companies may have common ownership or
directors does not make them the same entity or preclude the
presentation of petitions against them if counsel believes grounds
exist for doing so. A careful examination of the court processes
filed by parties at the various suits indicates differences in
either parties or reliefs sought, which defeats your (Honeywell’s)
allegation of abuse of court process.”
NBA said a Court of Appeal judgment which Honeywell attached to
the petition “did not make any pronouncement against the respondent
(Ogunba) on the issue of abuse of court process,” According to it,
the appellate court did not indict Ogunba, therefore, the judgment
would “not be used as a basis for coming to the conclusion that
grounds exist for commencing disciplinary hearing against the
respondent.
“The respondent’s actions are in our respectful view in line
with the duty of a counsel to do everything which in the exercise
of his discretion he thinks best for the general interest of his
client, which cannot be fettered by subjecting him to disciplinary
proceedings. The respondent owed his client a duty to take all
lawful steps to directly and or indirectly represent his client and
or get the best in the circumstance for his client in reliance on
the best of his professional ability.
“We are of the informed view that the actions and or decisions
taken by the respondent were not only authorised by his instruction
but were made in the course of an attempt at arriving at an
amicable settlement in the matter. The respondent’s actions in the
course of representing his client are instilled by his duty to get
the best for his client and do not impugn the integrity of the
legal profession.
“We are, therefore, of the considered belief that the
allegations contained in the petition under reference do not
contain facts indicating any infraction of the Rules of
Professional Conduct. In the light of the foregoing, we will be
unable to further Inquire into the matter by forwarding the
petition to the LPDC. The petition is hereby dismissed as it lacks
merit,” NBA said.
In his own defence, Ogunba had claimed that the suits were
against the individual companies and did not amount to an abuse.
Besides, he said Honeywell’s suit was “a bid to perpetually tie the
hands” of his client. He further told the LPPC that his client’s
decision to file several actions against individual companies
within Honeywell Group was supported by judicial authorities.
> The lawyer also told the LPPC that the suits did not have
the same parties and therefore did not amount to an abuse as
alleged. “The suits have to be separate because winding up petition
is ad-hominem to each individual company and can thus not be lumped
together by a collective action,” Ogunba added.
Why observers are wondering why the LPDC took the decision
against Ogunba when the NBA had cleared him of any wrongdoing, the
latest clearance by the NBA has again shown that the legal
disciplinary body was bias in its decision to strip the insolvency
lawyer of his SAN rank. To them, even though many have argued that
the LPDC is not bound by the decision of the NBA and that the fact
that Ogunba was cleared by NBA does not mean the LPDC should accept
the clearance, it was simply bizarre that the same petition could
produce different judgments when the facts and evidence are the
same.
> Many legal pundits have submitted that the fact the NBA
would clear the lawyer of any wrongdoing and get sanctioned by the
LPDC showed that the legal disciplinary body was put under pressure
to arrive at the decision. They also believed that the LPDC
committee did not carefully examine the respondent’s reply,
otherwise, the outcome naturally should have been the same. The
pundits concluded that the latest clearance by the NBA may have
shown that the committee the LPDC appointed to investigate the
petition did not do a thorough job.
Their submission is that the cases that Ogunba was said to have
filed were all in order. They stated that the fact that Honeywell
is a group of companies and owned by one man (Otudeko) does not
mean that Ogunba needed to file one suit.
Others believe that this is the first time that the NBA would
clear a lawyer of misconduct allegations and the LPDC would still
go ahead to sanction the person. They are equally surprised why the
LPDC would use abuse of due process to cure another abuse of court
process?
To further vindicate Ogunba, when one of the cases came up for
hearing in court recently, Honeywell Group Chairman Dr Oba Otudeko,
admitted to Justice Mohammed Idris of the Federal High Court in
Lagos that his companies owed Ecobank Nigeria Limited individually,
but that the debt had been repaid. In his witness statement on oath
filed before the judge, the business mogul said the firms jointly
negotiated with the bank on the repayment terms.
Justice Idris had, at the instance of Ecobank’s lawyer Mr.
Divine Agbua, subpoenaed Otudeko to testify in an alleged
N5.5billion debt suit between three of his companies and the bank.
The companies – Anchorage Leisures Ltd, Siloam Global Ltd and
Honeywell Flour Mills Plc – are praying the court to hold that they
are not indebted to Ecobank.
In his witness statement on Oath, Otudeko admitted that his
companies owed the bank separately. He maintained that his
companies had paid N3.5billion as of December 12, 2013 as the full
and final payment for the N5.5billion debt as agreed by the parties
in a July 22, 2013 meeting.
He said: “The plaintiffs were individual customers of the
defendant (Ecobank) and had personal outstanding exposures to the
defendant. In view of the fact that Honeywell Group Limited is the
parent company of the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs under the auspices
of the Honeywell Group, led by me, opened up negotiations to settle
the then outstanding indebtedness of the plaintiffs to the
defendant.”
With the foregoing, analysts have called on the LPDC to redeem
itself by carefully examining the petition and restoring Ogunba’s
SAN title in the interest of justice.
Quote
It is difficult to concede to the allegation that the suits amount
to abuse of court process upon which a disciplinary proceeding
should commence
NBA President, A.B. Mahmoud
Tobi Soniyi. Deputy Editor/Group Politics Editor. THISDAY. 35
Creeks Road, Apapa, Lagos
Culled From ThisDay
Read more https://nairalaw.com/matter-arising-from-ogunbas-suspension-as-san/