Legal Practitioner

• Pages: 411-623

LEGAL PRACTITIONERS

(1) ACTION BASED ON BILL OF CHARGES

1301. Guidelines on contents of legal practitioner’s bill of charges.

“It follows that the respondent in the present case was expected to provide param-

eters and necessary evidence upon which the Court would assess what is reasonable

compensation on quantum meruit for the services rendered by him up the judgment

obtained against the company on behalf of the appellant when his contract was ter-

minated. He ought to have indicated in the bill of charges the nature of the various

aspects of the services he rendered; his experience at the bar which matched the

skill the particular legal matters demanded; and in evidence justified the reasonable-

ness of the charges for the services: See: Oyo v. Merchantile Bank (Nig.) Ltd.

(1989) 3 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 108) 213.

A legal practitioner should be able to present a bill of charges which, among

other facts, should particularise his fees and charges, e.g. (a) perusing documents

and giving professional advice; (b) conducting necessary (specified) inquiries; (c)

drawing up the writ of summons and statement of claim; (d) number of appearances

in Court and the dates; (e) summarised statement of the work done in Court, indicat-

ing some peculiar difficult nature of the case (if any) so as to give an insight to the

client as to what he is being asked to pay for; (f) the standing of counsel at the bar in

terms of years of experience and/or the rank with which he is invested in the profes-

sion. It is necessary to indicate amount of fees against each of these items: see

Oyekanmi v. NEPA (2000) 15 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 690) 414 at 437. In compensating a

legal practitioner upon a quantum meruit for services he has actually rendered, it will

be more realistic to make assessment on the basis of the particulars of the nature of

work done by him to arrive at what can be considered a reasonable compensation. It

is then a sum which “the Judge appears to have arrived at on consideration of all

necessary factors would be a reasonable remuneration in all the circumstances” as

observed by Lord Atkinson in Way v. Latilla (supra); and I respectfully agree with

that.” – Per Uwaifo, J.S.C. in S.B.N. Plc. Opanubi (2004) 15 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 896)

437 at 458.

1302. What a legal practitioner suing for his charges must prove.

“It seems to me from this that a legal practitioner cannot simply rest his case on the

fact that he has submitted a bill of charges not taxed and supported by a certificate of

taxation, and then be content to say that he is so entitled because the client failed to

apply for taxation. What is more, the legal practitioner has to prove that the client is

liable to pay the bill of charges and the client is not precluded from disproving that he

is so liable; and I believe they have to show this during taxation proceeding.” – Per

Uwaifo, J.C.A. in Oyo v. Mercantile Bank (Nig.) Ltd. Suit No. CA/E/115/87;

(1989) 3 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 108) 213 at 223.411

Action based on a bill of charges Paras. 1301,1302

Paras. 1303-1305 Vol. 15: LEGAL PRACTITIONERS 412

(2) ACTIONS OF COUNSEL

1303. A counsel who points at the address for service to the bailiff and

deposed to an affidavit needs to disclose his source of information.

“The affidavit was deposed to not by, any of the foregoing. The endorsement on the

writ shows that the writ was issued by Kehinde Sofola & Co, the chambers repre-

senting the respondents. The chambers was involved in the process of service of the

writ. The deponent has this to say in the affidavit attached to the ex parte motion for

substituted service that: - “Paragraph 1 “That I am a counsel in the firm of Kehinde

Sofola & Co, solicitors to the plaintiffs herein and as such I am familiar with this case

and all the facts deposed to herein are within my personal knowledge except as

otherwise stated.” As a counsel to the respondents he must equally be involved in the

process of the service like the bailiff and that is why I find his statement on page 21

of the records that he was the pointer of the address for service to the bailiff credible.

It would not be wrong to conclude that because he partook in the service by substitu-

tion he deposed to the facts from his personal knowledge Sections 86, 88 and 89 of

the Evidence Act are not applicable to the affidavit in support of the ex parte motion

filed on 11/7/95.” - Per Adekeye, J.C.A. in Ajibola v. Sogeke Suit No. CA/I/

M.125/96; (2001) 23 W.R.N. 68 at 95.

1304. Appellate counsel’s duty to comply with rules of Court.

“This is an unfortunate case where counsel for the appellant has failed flagrantly to

comply with the Rules of Court in couching his grounds of appeal properly as re-

quired by the Rules. This Court and the Supreme Court have held times without

number that counsel in appeal cases must comply with the Rules as laid down by the

Courts. The Rules of Court are not made for fun.” – Per Ige, J.C.A. Abolarin v.

Chairman Rent Tribunal No. 3 Suit No. CA/K/50/91; (1998) 1.N.W.L.R. (Pt. 533)

273 at 282.

1305. Application of the rule where Court will not visit mistake of counsel

on the client.

(1) “Whenever counsel is in some fix or dilemma, they find the principle of law that

the mistakes of counsel should not be visited on his client, most useful, which they

think can do all the magic. Most times, they recite the principle like a kindergarten

rhyme or recitation and with confidence that the Court will react in their favour. I

have said it in the past and I will say it again that the principle of law is good only as

it remains a general statement of the law. There are quite a number of exceptions. I

am fond of giving one and it is where a counsel files an action in a Court which has no

jurisdiction to hear the matter. For instance, if counsel commences an action on a

customary right of occupancy in the High Court of Enugu State, can the principle of

law avail the client who is a victim of the action? Will the High Court assume juris-

413 Action of counsel Para. 1305

diction because it is mistake of counsel? In the instant case, counsel told the Court

that he had instruction from his client to discontinue the case. Where lies the mistake

of counsel? Mistake in conveying the instruction of his client? I do not know of such

a mistake.

If it is a mistake, it is that of the client, and happily there is no law known to

me that the Courts should always ignore the mistakes of clients. Mistakes of parties

are some of the romances in litigation. Counsel capitalise on them and the party in

mistake calls upon the Court to do substantial justice and not to follow the technicali-

ties of the law. A mistake, in the context means an error, or to think wrongly and

arrive at a wrong conclusion. If there are no mistakes, either from the parties or

from counsel, litigation will attract less romances and its legal content in terms of the

decision taking process, will be minimal.” - Per Tobi, J.C.A. in Lenas Fibreglass

Ltd. v. Furtado Suit No. CA/E/53/95; (1997) 5 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 504) 220 at 236.

(2) “Before I wrap up this judgment, I shall like to touch briefly on the submission of

learned senior counsel for the appellant wherein he pointed out that mistake of coun-

sel should not be allowed to prejudice his client. This Court is familiar with such wide

dicta and judgments in which it has been stated that faults or blunders of counsel

should not be visited on his clients, particularly in circumstances where the other

party can be adequately compensated in costs in relation to the lapses. There is a

plethora of legal authorities on this matter but suffice it to mention just one: Chief

Lamai v. Chief Orbih (1980) 5-7 S.C. 28 at 34, where the Supreme Court, per Bello,

J.S.C. as he then was stated: – “This Court has held repeatedly that it will not bring

to bear on the fortune of the parties to an appeal the disastrous effect of the negli-

gence or inadvertence of counsel to take within time, the steps prescribed by law to

bring any matter properly before the Court when proper applications are made to

extend the period prescribed by law for taking such steps.” This is the approach by

the liberal and beneficent mind of Justice Bello and Justices of like-mind.

In fear of too much laxity in the practice of law some Judges have cau-

tioned that discretion of the Court in such circumstances as in Chief Lamai case

must not be invoked to over-indulge an erring party because he says the error, whether

omission or commission, is that of counsel or clerk of the counsel. After all, a Court

which is presided over by a Judge is a Court of law and equity. It is also a Court of

justice and the interest of justice dictates that justice should be even-handed to all

concerned, including the Court. It may be observed that the bulk of cases in which

the Court is urged not to visit the sins of counsel on his client, but rather compensate

the other party in costs, is with regard to circumstances in which a party had failed to

do within time which is statutorily prescribed. Such indulgences are accorded to

parties in the interlocutory stage of cases either at the lower Court or during the

preliminaries in appeals but not when the cases had been duly completed and are on

appeal.” - Per Achike, J.C.A. in Lenas Fibreglass Ltd. v. Furtado Suit No. CA/E/

53/95; (1997) 5 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 504) 220 at 233 - 234.