Month: December 2022

There are many things a legal practitioner in Nigeria cannot do. One of such is that a lawyer cannot engage in the trade of buying and selling lands. This principle of law received judicial authority in NBA v Ibebunjo (2013) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1386) 413

In that case, the respondent, Anozie Ibebunjo, a legal practitioner, fraudulently obtained from the petitioner the sum of N1.6 million under the pretext that he sold to the petitioner eight plots of land at Agbama Olokoro in the year 2002, but since that year, the petitioner had not been able to take possession of the land or received refund of his money despite repeated demands. 

The respondent did not show his root of title, as there was no receipt or memorandum evidencing the customary purchase from the original landowners. The respondent drafted a Power of Attorney wherein he promised to indemnify the petitioner in the case of any defect in his title. The promise was not kept. He however alleged that he refunded the sum of N300,000 (three hundred thousand naira) to the petitioner.

Upon consideration of the facts, the Nigerian Bar Association concluded that a prima facie case of unprofessional conduct had been substantiated against the respondent and consequently filed a complaint before the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee of the Body of Benchers.

In its judgment, the LPDC considered Rules 1, 7 (2), (3), 23, and 55 of the Rules of Professional Conduct for Legal Practitioners 2007:

1. A lawyer shall uphold and observe the rule of law, promote and foster the course of justice, maintain a high standard of professional conduct, and shall not engage in any conduct which is unbecoming of a legal practitioner.

7(2) A lawyer shall not practice as a legal practitioner while personally engaged in –

(a) the business of buying and selling commodities; 

(b) the business of a commission agent; 

(c) such other trade or business which the Bar Council may from time to time declare to be 

incompatible with practice as a lawyer or as tending to undermine the high standing of the profession

(3) For the purpose of the rule, ―trade or business‖ include all forms or participation in any trade or business, but does not include-

(a) membership of the Board of Directors of a company which does not involve either executive, administrative or clerical functions; 

(b) being Secretary of a company; or 

(c) being a shareholder in a company.

The LPDC held that the respondent, Anozie Ibebunjo, was guilty of infamous conduct in a professional respect; that he should refund the sum of N800,000 to his client Mr. Frank Ezeife. His name was also struck off the roll of legal practitioners, that is, he ceased being a lawyer.

The LPDC further extensively held that: “it is clear beyond peradventure that the business of selling land is a trade or business incompatible with the practice of law. In the instant case, the respondent was clearly doing illegal business to sell land. The justice of this case demands that we allow him to go full-time into his main business of selling land and to leave the business of practicing law to those who are bona fide legal practitioners This case exemplifies the wisdom of the founding fathers in prohibiting legal practitioners from carrying on trade or business incompatible with the practice of law. This was to forestall a situation where the profession of law will be robbed of its lustre and brought into odium, opprobrium, and disrepute by allowing the ethic of other professions to fuse or intermingle with the noble ethics of the legal profession. Legal Practitioners must make up their minds whether or not they desire to practice law. The profession will not tolerate those who in the morning are lawyers, and in the afternoon or evening of the same day, members of other businesses or professions. The stream of the ethics of our profession must be kept clear and sparkling, unpolluted by the understanding of our members of the business practice and ethics of other professions. Indeed, it is a matter of choice for a person to practice law or any other profession and no lawyer should stand by and watch so-called members of our profession bring the profession into disrepute. The link between the respondent`s misconduct and his office as a legal practitioner is therefore apparent. He has brought a great dent in the image of the profession and the only remedy is to exit from the profession.”

As such, the import of this decision is that a lawyer cannot concurrently practise law and also engages in buying and selling of lands as a business. You can either be one of the two upon getting called to the Bar.

However, this decision does not extend to a lawyer who wants to sell his land in his personal capacity. NBA v Kareem 45(2015) 12 NWLR (Pt 1472) 190. In that case, the LPDC held that: a legal practitioner who sells his land cannot be accused of engaging in trade or business incompatible with legal practice contrary to Rules 1 and 7(2) of the Rules of Professional Conduct. To hold otherwise will put lawyers in a difficult position where they will not be able to sell their possessions or properties without running afoul of the Rules of professional ethics

This Ibebunjo’s principle also doesn’t extend to when he is retained by either of the contracting parties (vendor or vendee) to advise and prepare a land document, perfection of title deed, etc. This is because these legal works can only be done by a legal practitioner

Moving on, by virtue of Section 7(2) of the Rules of Professional Conduct, it is wrong, for example, for Mr. XYZ (a legal practitioner) to go to the office in the morning, and come back in the evening to his shop where he sells vehicle spare parts or kitchen utensils in Bodija Market. The law is that a legal practitioner cannot engage in the buying and selling of commodities while he is still practising law. He can do either, not both. 

Unfortunately, we still have some lawyers that practice this infamous conduct overtly or even covertly by trading under the cloak of someone appointed by them. As a recommendation, the Nigerian Bar Association should set up a task committee, in each geopolitical zone in Nigeria, to address this menace. 

This is the last article of the year. What a year it has been with our readers. Thank you for always turning up. We wish everyone a merry Christmas and Happy New Year in advance.

It is not uncommon that you have referred to a legal practitioner in Nigeria with ‘barrister’ as a prefix to his name. For instance, Barrister Roosevelt. Relax, you’re not the only one😂. Even lawyers do. But then is this proper? What is the standpoint of law on this issue?

While this is a popular culture of name reference, it is pertinent to state that it is unprofessional and wrong. The rationale behind this is found in Section 22(1)(b) of the Legal Practitioner Act which permits only lawyers to take or use the title of a legal practitioner.

A proper interpretation of that section shows that the Legal Practitioner Act does not contemplate that the word “barrister” should be used as an honorific or title before one’s name. In NBA v OFOMATA (2017) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1557) 128 at 133, the Court held that: “The appellation of ‘Barrister’ as a title before the name of a legal practitioner is unprofessional and improper.”

Based on this, the proper way to address a legal practitioner in Nigeria is Mr. Roosevelt (Barrister and Solicitor of the Supreme Court of Nigeria) and not Barrister Roosevelt. 

Thank you for reading. See you next week. That would be the last article for the year.

From an unknown number sending a text that your BVN has been blocked to one Mr. Sunday who claimed ‘Chevron’ has given you an employment offer to several formal calculated scams, we live in a time where perpetration of fraud is on a spate. 

The offence of fraud in Nigeria is primarily governed by the Advance Fee Fraud and Other Fraud Related Offences Act. Advance fee frauds are crimes where a person or group of persons is promised a sum of money or any valuables once certain fees are paid in advance. The promise is always given with no intention of materialization. Examples of this scheme are loan scams, employment frauds, impersonation of officials, and the popular 419, among others.

Today’s analysis seeks to answer the court that has the jurisdiction to try advance fee fraud cases. 

By virtue of the provision of Section 1 of the Advance Fee Fraud and Other Fraud Related Offences Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), any person who by false pretence, and with intent to defraud –

(a)obtain from any other person in Nigeria or in any other country, for himself or any other person induces any other person in Nigeria or in any 

(b)other country to deliver to any persons; or obtains any property, whether or not the property is obtained or its delivery is induced through the medium of a contract induced by the false pretence, is guilty of an offence under the Act.

By virtue of Section 1(3) of the Act, a person who commits an offence under Section 1(1) is liable on conviction to imprisonment for a term of not more than twenty years and not less than seven years without an option of a fine. Thus, this section gives a maximum sentence of twenty years and a minimum sentence of seven years imprisonment, both without an option of a fine.

Based on the statutory provision of Section 14 of the Act and judicial authorities enunciated in  Nweke v. FRN (2019) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1679) and Lawal v State (2020) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1744), the position of law is that Federal High Court or the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory and the High Court of the State have concurrent jurisdiction to try offences and impose penalties under the Act.

Happy new month, readers. Thank you for reading. See you next week.