Download PDF
The 1st to 3rd Defendants filed a Notice of Preliminary Objection on the 21st day of February 2017 seeking the following orders: 1. AN ORDER of this honourable court striking out this suit. 2. AN ORDER of this honourable court barring the claimant's counsel, Hon. Barr. Ndubuisi Kalu Agbayi, from further appearing in this suit. The NPO was brought under Order 17, Rule 1 (1) & (9) of the National Industrial Court Rules, 2017; Rule 17 (5) of the Rules of Professional Conduct for Legal Practitioners, 2007 and under the inherent power of this Court. In the affidavit in support of the NPO deposed to by Henry Nwokeukwu, a Higher Executive Officer (Litigation) in the Civil Litigation Office of the Abia State Ministry of Justice, Umuahia, it was averred that the claimant's counsel in this suit is the 4th claimant in Suit No. HU/176/2016 between Hon. Chief Barr. Augusto Uwadi Kanu the Executive Governor of Abia State. The suit is still pending before the Abia State High Court. A copy of the originating process was attached to the affidavit and marked Exhibit 'A'. The claimant’s counsel, who deposed in the court process, stated that he is a member of the 3rd defendant in this suit. The Claimant's counsel cannot act or appear for the claimant in this suit on grounds of conflict of interest. The originating complaint in this suit is incompetent and it will be in the interest of justice to strike out this suit. Counsel to the 1st to 3rd Defendants/Applicants in the written address in support of the Notice of Preliminary Objection, raised these two issues for determination: i. Whether the Claimant's counsel can act or appear in this suit having regard to the Legal Practitioners Act, LFN 2004 and Rule 17 (5) of the Rules of Professional Conduct for Legal Practitioners, 2007. ii. Whether this suit is competent. On Issue One, Applicants Counsel submitted inter alia that the provisions of Rule 17(5) of the Rules of Professional Conduct for Legal Practitioners, 2007 state that "A lawyer shall not appear as counsel for a client in a legal proceeding in which the lawyer is himself a party." Counsel contended that the Claimant's counsel is a litigant or party in this suit, being a member of the 3rd Defendant/Applicant, and such member or party owes a duty of service to the third Defendant/Applicant. His appearance on behalf of the Claimant/Respondent is therefore in clear breach of Rule 17(5) of the Rules of Professional Conduct for Legal Practitioners, a conduct which amounts to a conflict of interest. See Balogun vs. Akanji (1992) 2NWLR (Pt. 225) 591 at p. 606 paras. C-D) per Salami J.C.A. (ratio 12) on propriety of counsel representing conflicting interests. Counsel further argued that a litigant legal practitioner ceases to be a legal practitioner qua the proceedings, and is therefore not competent under the provisions of the Legal Practitioners Act, 2004 to represent or conduct the case of a co-party and that in his role as a litigant or party he cannot appear as a legal practitioner also. See Fawehinmi vs. N.B.A. (No.1) (1989) 2 NWLR (Pt. 105) 494 at Pg. 547 paras. B-C. Counsel submitted that the use of the words "shall not" in Rule 17(5) of the RPC does not give room for a permissive interpretation, but connotes a mandatory and absolute obligation on the part of a legal practitioner not to represent a client in any legal processing's in which the legal practitioner is himself a party. See Balogun vs. Akanji (supra). On Issue 2, the 1st to 3rd Defendants’ counsel opined that the suit of the Claimant is incompetent, raising the principles of law stated in the case of Madukolu vs. Nkemdili (1962) 2 SCNLR 341, that for a court of law to properly assume jurisdiction to entertain a matter, three conditions must be satisfied, that is: a. The suit must be commenced by due process of law; b. There must be no feature which deprives the court of its jurisdiction in respect of the subject-matter of the suit; and c. The court must be properly constituted. See also Okpe vs. Fan Milk Plc (2017) 2 NWLR (Pt. 1549) 282 atp.303. Counsel further argued that by the provisions of Rule 17(5) Rules of Professional Conduct for Legal Practitioners, the complaint prepared by the Claimant's counsels in breach of the Legal Practitioners Act and the Rules of Professional Conduct, is incompetent and that the proceedings are predicated on a defective process. See Skye Bank Plc vs. Penbury (Nig) Ltd. (2016) All FWLR (Pt. 833) 1882. The Claimant filed a counter affidavit of 7 paragraphs deposed to by Patience Agwu, a Litigation Clerk in the law firm of Agbayi Ndubuisi & Co. It is averred by the deponent that N. K. Agbayi is not a party in this suit and he made full disclosure to the Claimant of his relationship with all the parties before he took up the brief. There is no conflict of interest when N. K. Agbayi settled the processes in this suit as his appointment as a member of the 3rd Defendant has been terminated by the 1st and 2nd Defendants at the time. The Cause of action in this suit arose upon the 1st Defendant's acceptance of Resolution 42 of the Abia State House of Assembly of 15/11/2016 and the consequent dissolution of the 3rd Defendant on 16/11/2016 by the 1st Defendant. Upon dissolution of the 3rd Defendant, N. K. Agbayi ceased to owe any legal allegiance on which conflict of interest may arise. The 2nd Defendant ensured that the allowances of N. K. Agbayi and other former members of the dissolved 3rd Defendant were stopped. Suit HU/176/2016 was filed to challenge the unconstitutional dissolution of the 3rd Defendant by the 1st Defendant. In the accompanying written address, the Claimant’s Counsel raised two issues for determination 1. Whether at the time of accrual of the cause of action in the suit, N. K. Agbayi remained a member of the 3rd Defendant on record. 2. Whether in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, N. K. Agbayi is a party in the present proceedings. Counsel argued both issues together and submitted that a court cannot go outside the originating process and statement of claim to determine the accrual of cause of action and that this can be done without the taking of evidence. See AGI vs. ENO [2010] 5 NWLR [Pt. 1186] Pg. 626 CA at Pg. 641 at paras B - C, per Ngwuta JCA. Counsel submitted that on the 16th of November, 2016 after 1st Defendant, following the Abia State House of Assembly Resolution no. 42, "dissolving" the 3rd Defendant and 1st Defendant having taken several other steps to purportedly "appoint" and "reconstitute" the said 3rd Defendant, the Claimant became agitated and fearful in the face of dismissal from their jobs and that it is the imminence of Claimants' Abia State members losing their jobs; having the 3rd Defendant cleared out in the manner that it was done that raises constitutional questions, prompting briefing of Counsel and filing of suit in this court. Having regard to the totality of the facts of this case i.e. the 1st Defendants "dissolution" and "reconstitution" of the 3rd Defendant, counsel maintains that it will be incorrect to say that N. K. Agbayi, Esq. of Counsel remained a member of the 3rd Defendant and to read the averment in the supporting affidavit of the annexed process on its face value without more. The suit which the annexed affidavit references is a challenge to the constitutionality of "dissolving" instead of "removing" members of the 3rd Defendant by 1st Defendant, as provided for in S. 201 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. Counsel also submitted that N. K. Agbayi, Esq. does not owe subsisting/ perpetual allegiance and interest in the 3rd Defendant except and until this position is reversed through the instrumentality of court and that N. K. Agbayi, Esq. as at the 5th of December, 2016 when he filed this suit was [according to line 3 in paragraph 4 of 2nd Defendant's letter dated 30/1/2017] merely "parading himself" [sic] as a member of the 3rd Defendant and that the ongoing suit no. HU/176/2016 Hon Chief Barr. Augusto Uwadi Kanu & 3 Ors vs. The Executive Governor & 3 0rs heard on 8/12/2016 is a challenge to the constitutionality or otherwise of "dissolution" instead "removal" of members of the 3rd Defendant and the hurried "reconstitution" without all members having been cleared by Abia State House of Assembly. Counsel further submitted that a combined reading of the Claimants' averments, particularly in paragraphs 17, 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22 of the Affidavit in support of Motion on Notice dated the 5/12/2016; and also in paragraphs 4 a, b, c, d [i], [ii], [iii], [iv] and [v], 5 a, b, c, d of the Counter Affidavit to the Motion dated 6/2/2017, all point to the effect that N. K. Agbayi, Esq. of Counsel was not a member of the 3rd Defendant and therefore defeats the argument about possible existence of conflict of interest. The Claimants being staff under the 3rd Defendant and being fully seized of the manner of dissolution, appointment and reconstitution of the 3rd Defendant, made a conscious choice of Counsel to represent them in this suit. A further affidavit was filed by the 1st to 3rd defendants. Henry Nwokeukwu who deposed to the further affidavit averred that Suit no. HU/176/2016 is still pending in the Abia State High Court, and has not been determined. There is also a pending motion in the suit for an order of interlocutory injunction restraining the defendants in the suit from interference with the composition, functions and duties of the 3rd Defendant. N. K. Agbayi has continued to attend meetings of the 3rd Defendant with the co-claimants in suit no. HU/176/2016, on the basis of an interim order of injunction made by the Abia State High Court. N. K. Agbayi, and his co-claimants in suit No. HU/176/2016 are still on the payroll of the 3rd Defendant and it was on that basis a letter dated 9/3/2017 was written by the 3rd Defendant to the Abia State Commissioner for Finance demanding payment of allowances due to the members of the 3rd Defendant including N. K. Agbayi. The letter, exhibited and marked Exhibit AA, was signed by members of the 3rd Defendant including N.K. Agbayi. N.K. Agbayi ought not to appear or continue to appear in this suit. COURT’s DECISION The 1st to 3rd Defendants seek to have the Claimant’s counsel, Mr. N. K Agbayi, disqualified from appearing as counsel in this matter. The contention of the 1st to 3rd Defendants is that Mr. N. K Agbayi is a member of the 3rd Defendant and this raises an issue of conflict of interest. The counsel to the 1st to 3rd Defendants cited Rule 17 (5) of the Rules of Professional Conduct for Legal Practitioners, 2007 to argue that N.K Agbayi cannot appear as counsel for the Claimant in this matter when he himself, being a member of the 3rd Defendant, is deemed to be a Defendant in the matter. From the facts of the Preliminary Objection, it is clear that Mr. N. K. Agbayi was a member of the 3rd Defendant. According to the counter affidavit of the Claimant, the 3rd Defendant was dissolved by the 1st Defendant on 16th November 2016 and Mr. N. K. Agbayi ceased to be a member of the 3rd Defendant at the time he took the brief and filed this action on 5th December 2016. One thing that is clear from the facts is that Mr. N. K. Agbayi had a relationship with one of the Defendants in this suit. Whether he can conduct a matter against such a Defendant depends on whether the relationship still subsists. The Claimant admitted the existence of Suit HU/176/2016 in paragraph 5 (c) of the counter affidavit. It was averred that the suit was to challenge the unconstitutional dissolution of the 3rd Defendant by the 1st Defendant. The parties also agree that the suit is still pending before the Abia State High Court. In the copy of the processes in the suit exhibited to the affidavit in support of the Notice of Preliminary Objection, Mr. N. K. Agbayi is the 4th Claimant in the suit. The Claimants in the suit stated that they were members of the Abia State JSC affected by the dissolution of the JSC by the 1st Defendant. They sought to have the dissolution set aside. In paragraph 18 of the affidavit in support of the originating summons, the Mr. N. K. Agbayi who deposed to the affidavit stated that they were duly appointed members of the Abia State JSC and their term is still running. The effect of the pendency of suit HU/176/2016 is that the membership of Mr. N. K. Agbayi is an issue that has not been resolved. In other words, the relationship between counsel and 3rd Defendant has not been totally or completely severed. The outcome of suit HU/176/2016 in favour of the Claimants will imply that they remain members of the 3rd Defendant at all material times even during the period counsel represented the Claimant in this suit. Exhibit AA of the further affidavit of the 1st to 3rd Defendants is a letter signed by Dr. A. U. Kanu, Lady Stella Ezuoke, Hon. G. Onyekwere and Barr. N. K. Agbayi on 9th March 2017 and addressed to the Commissioner for Finance, Abia State. The writers, which include Mr. N. K. Agbayi described themselves as “members of the Abia State Judicial Service Commission” and in paragraph 11 of the letter, they stated that the JSC to which they were members have been sitting and conducting business in line with an order of the Abia State High Court in suit HU/176/2016 restraining the Defendants from reconstituting the JSC. From the contents of the letter, counsel still sees himself as a member of the 3rd Defendant, even after counsel had filed this case on behalf of the Claimant against the 3rd Defendant in which he is a member. Furthermore, the pleading in paragraphs 21 and 22 of the statement of facts in this suit and the facts deposed in paragraph 4 (d) ii & iii of the claimant’s counter affidavit reveal that the cause of action in this suit arose when the 1st Defendant dissolved the 3rd Defendant on 16/11/2016 pursuant to Resolution 42 of the Abia State House of Assembly of 15/11/2016. These facts show that this suit is connected to the dissolution of the 3rd Defendant when Mr. N. K. Agbayi was a member of the 3rd Defendant. Therefore, the cause of action in the instant case and the issue of the membership of Mr. N.K. Agbayi in the 3rd Defendant have the same source or foundation. I find that the cause of action in this suit is connected to and founded on the dissolution of the 3rd Defendant which process affected the membership of Mr. N. K. Agbayi in the 3rd Defendant. By the fact of the pending suit HU/176/2016 challenging the dissolution of the 3rd Defendant, the issue of the membership of counsel in the 3rd Defendant is yet to be determined. In my view, appearance of counsel against the 3rd Defendant in a matter in which the said dissolution is an issue is no more than counsel representing a party in a suit against his own interest. It is morally and legally wrong for counsel to represent the Claimant in this suit against the Abia State JSC. The conduct of counsel clearly contravenes Rules 17 (5) of the Rules of Professional Conduct for Legal Practitioners, 2007. I will disqualify Mr. N. K. Agbayi from further representing the Claimants in this suit for reason of existing and unresolved relationship with the 3rd Defendant likely to result in conflict of interest. It is accordingly so ordered. As for the 1st order sought by the 1st to 3rd Defendants for the striking out of this suit, I shall not grant that relief. The mere fact that Mr. N. K. Agbayi filed this suit on behalf of the Claimant does not render the suit incompetent. The suit was instituted by the Claimant and not Mr. N. K. Agbayi. Hence, the status of the Claimant in the matter is not affected by the disqualification of its counsel. Therefore, the Claimant should be allowed to secure the services of another counsel to prosecute the suit. No order as to cost. Ruling is entered accordingly. Hon. Justice O. Y. Anuwe Judge