AKAZOR GLADYS & ORS V. COUNCIL OF LEGAL EDUCATION

Case Name: Akazor Gladys & Ors v. Council of Legal Education

Court: National Industrial Court of Nigeria

Date: Mar. 20, 2019

Citation: NICN/ABJ/346/2017

Introduction

The claimants are Akazor Gladys, Daodu Grace, Magaret Kure, Peter Ladi, Ini Paul Okon, Ogwugbu Binifae, Mr E. Adagba, Duniya Josephine Kande, Timothy Ohia Issac, Tukura Pauline (suing for themselves and on behalf of 139 others). They are contesting the validity of the defendant’s counsel who is a full salaried employee/public officer in a public institution – the Nigerian Law School.

The defendant is a public institution being sued for lack of appropriate legal representation.

It is a civil matter that was instituted and heard in the National Industrial Court of Nigeria (NICN). The NICN generally deals with matters arising from workplace dispute or labour related matters.

Facts of the Case

The claimants by a motion on notice dated 17th day of September 2018 and filed on the same day bought pursuant to the 5th Schedule to the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) (CFRN), Section 8(1) of the Legal Practitioners Act, Cap. L11 LFN 2004 (LPA), Section 1 of the Regulated and other Professionals Private Practice Prohibition Act. Cap.  R13, LFN 2004 (ROPPA), Section 6(2) of the Interpretation Act 2004, Rules 8 and 15 of the Rules of Professional Conduct for Legal Practitioners 2007 (RPC), Rules 30 and 31 of the Rules of Professional Ethics of Legal Professional 1980 (RPE) and under the inherent jurisdiction of the NICN sought relief for the following orders:

1. A declaration that the counsel to the defendant was a full salary-based employee in a public institution – the Nigerian Law School and under the direct service of the defendant.
2. A declaration that the counsel to the defendant being a full salary-based employee in a public institution – the Nigerian Law School and under the direct service of the defendant is disallowed in law from engaging in private practice by way of representing a litigant in court in a private capacity as counsel and therefore has no right of audience in this suit under the law.
3. An order prohibiting counsel to the defendant from representing the defendant in court in this suit as long as he remains a full salaried based employee in a public institution – the Nigerian Law school and under the direct employment of the defendant.
4. An order that the application filed by the counsel to the defendant dated 12th April, 2018 praying the court for the grant of leave for the extension of time be struck out, same having wittingly signed, franked and filed by a counsel who already suffers a legal disability and for a defendant who knows or ought to have known that its counsel is with the said disability.
5. An order directing this matter to immediately proceed to hearing as the defendant, since after it was served claimants’ processes in this matter eight months ago (precisely on the 29th of January 2018), has not made an appearance or filed any memorandum of appearance in this matter.

Legal Issues

1. Whether or not counsel to the defendant, being a full salary based employee/public officer in a public institution, The Nigeria Law School and under the direct employment/service of the defendant, is disallowed in law from engaging in private practice by way of representing a litigant in court in a private capacity as counsel.
2. Whether or not counsel to the defendant, being a full salary based employee/public officer in a public institution, the Nigeria Law School and under the  direct employment/service of the defendant, has right of audience in this suit under the law and should therefore not be prohibited from representing the defendant in this suit as long as he remains a full salary based employee /public officer in a public institution, the Nigeria Law School and under the direct employment/service of the defendant.
3. Whether or not the defendant’s application filed by counsel to the defendant dated 12^thApril 2018 ought to be struck out by this Honourable court, having been wittingly signed, franked and filed by a counsel who already suffers a legal disability and for a Defendant who knows or ought to have known that its counsel is with the said legal disability.

Arguments

The claimants argued that Dr. E.O. Olowononi, being a full-time salaried public officer employed as a lecturer at the Nigerian Law School, is prohibited by law from engaging in private legal practice, including representing his employer in court. Citing constitutional provisions, the Legal Practitioners Act, the Regulated and Other Professions (Private Practice Prohibition) Act, and the Rules of Professional Conduct, they contended that his appearance, preparation, and filing of court processes violated multiple legal and ethical rules. They urged the court to strike out all such processes as incompetent and to prohibit further representation by him in the matter.

The defendant on the other hand argued that by the provision of Section 2 of the LPA, the condition precedent to practice law in Nigeria is enrolment at the Supreme Court. They further argued that the former counsel to the defendant, Dr. E. O. Olowononi, Esq haven being called to the Nigerian Bar was entitled to a right of audience and precedence in all courts of law sitting in Nigeria.

Court Analysis

The provisions of Rule 8 of the RPC clearly show the objective of this provision which is to guarantee employment of external counsel in litigation matters involving employers’ representation and not to engage lawyers in full based salaried employments for such matters.

The court decided from the above that the law does not disallow or prohibit a lecturer from engaging in private legal practice so far it is to render services to 3rd parties and not its employer. This means that a law lecturer like Dr E.O. Olowononi cannot appear in court for a matter involving his employer for the purpose of providing legal representation for his employer (the defendant in this case) but he can appear in respect of other persons.

Decision

The court decided that even though the law does not prohibit a law lecturer from engaging in private legal practice, the earlier counsel for the defendant, Dr E.O Olowononi cannot appear for his employers while under a full based salaried employment. He could however appear and provide legal representation in respect of other persons.

The court further held that the processes filed by the former counsel, Dr E.O Olowonini, for his employer, The Nigerian Law School, was incompetent thereby struck out, in view of the provisions of rule 8(2) of the RPC.

There were no concurring or dissenting opinions in this matter as the quorum was constituted by a single judge.

Significance

The decision of the Court in this matter upheld the provisions of the law as contained in the 5th Schedule to the CFRN, Section 8(1) of the LPA, Section 1 of the ROPPA, Section 6(2) of the Interpretation Act 2004, Rules 8 and 15 of the RPC, and Rules 30 and 31 of the RPE. On the duty of a lawyer, S. Kado, J succinctly captured as follows;

“It is apparent that Law Practice involves in a representative capacity appearing as an advocate or drawing up papers, pleadings or documents, or performing any act in connection with proceedings before a court or body, board, committee, commission or officers constituted by law or having authority to take evidence in or settle or determine controversies in the exercise of the judicial power of the state or any subdivision thereof. It is also part of a lawyers’ vocation to render expert opinions on matters of law and to be engaged as a consultant by public or private bodies to render professional services including drafting of legal or administrative documents, statutes, regulations, etc.”

Additionally, the court in its wisdom held that the appropriate fora to determine whether a public officer as Dr. E. O. Olowononi, Esq can engage in private practice was the Code of Conduct Bureau as was previously held by the Supreme Court in Ahmed v. Ahmed (2013) LPELR-2143(SC). In that case, the Supreme Court affirmed that the paragraph 2(b) of the Code of Conduct for Public Officers as contained in 5th Schedule of the CFRN requires to be interpreted solely by the Code of Conduct Tribunal.

Conclusion

A legal practitioner under full salaried employment can not represent his employer in a matter before the courts. In view of same, he cannot sign, frank or file any document in relation to such matters. If he employed for services other than litigation is estopped from representing his employer in litigation matters.

This case seeks to strike a balance between public sere ethics, legal professionalism and judicial discipline. The reaffirmation of the limitations placed on public officers including fulltime salaried employees such as lectured of the Nigerian law school acts a strong message on not only the integrity of legal representation but the professional boundaries that must be observed.

Importantly, the courts referral to the Code of Code Bureau and Code of Conduct Tribunal as the to determine whether a public officer underscores the need for procedural discipline in addressing breaches of public office ethics.

In my opinion, this case is a landmark precedent in Nigeria’s labour and administrative jurisprudence drawing a clear line between internal counsel and litigation counsel in public employment. It serves as a beacon for institutional accountability, ethical legal practice, and respect for due process.