CORAM

---

Joseph Olubunmi Kayode Oyewole Justice of the Court of Appeal

Peter Chudi Obiorah Justice of the Court of Appeal

Okon Efreti Abang Justice of the Court of Appeal

---

PARTIES

---

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF KANO STATE

APPELLANTS 

---

SUNUSI MUSA (SAN)

(CARRYING ON BUSINESS AS A LEGAL PRACTITIONER UNDER THE NAME AND STYLE OF ALIYU & MUSA LEGAL PRACTITIONERS AND CONSULTANTS)

 

RESPONDENTS 

---

AREA(S) OF LAW

---

CONTRACT LAW, LEGAL FEES, AGENCY, CIVIL PROCEDURE, APPEAL, JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

 

---

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The Respondent, Sunusi Musa (SAN), a legal practitioner, sued the Appellant, the Attorney General of Kano State, for the non-payment of professional fees amounting to ₦250,000,000 for representing the Kano State Government in a suit at the Supreme Court. The trial court granted judgment in favor of the Respondent, dismissing the Appellant’s preliminary objection and awarding the professional fee to the Respondent.

Dissatisfied with the judgment, the Appellant appealed, raising three main issues: (1) the jurisdiction of the trial court, (2) the failure of the trial court to properly appraise the Appellant’s defense, and (3) whether the Appellant’s affidavit disclosed a defense on the merits sufficient to transfer the case to the general cause list.

 

---

HELD

---

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and affirmed the decision of the lower court. It held that the trial court properly exercised its jurisdiction, that the Appellant’s affidavit did not disclose a sufficient defense, and that the Appellant’s right to a fair hearing was not breached.

 

---

ISSUES

---

1. Whether the trial court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit?

2. Whether the trial court’s failure to consider the Appellant’s affidavit constituted a breach of the Appellant’s right to a fair hearing?

3. Whether the Appellant’s affidavit disclosed a defense on the merits sufficient to warrant a transfer to the general cause list?

 

---

RATIONES DECIDENDI

---

JURISDICTION – WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT HAD JURISDICTION TO ENTERTAIN THE SUIT

---

“The Court held that the trial court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit since the Attorney General, as the Chief Law Officer of the State, is empowered by the Constitution to represent the State in legal matters. The fact that the Respondent sued the Attorney General instead of the Kano State Government did not affect the jurisdiction.”
– Per JOSEPH OLUBUNMI KAYODE OYEWOLE, JCA

 

---

BREACH OF FAIR HEARING – WHETHER THE FAILURE TO CONSIDER THE APPELLANT’S AFFIDAVIT BREACHED THE RIGHT TO FAIR HEARING

---

“The Court concluded that the Appellant’s right to fair hearing was not breached, as the trial court properly evaluated the affidavit evidence presented by both parties. The evaluation of evidence did not favor the Appellant, but this does not equate to a breach of fair hearing.”
– Per JOSEPH OLUBUNMI KAYODE OYEWOLE, JCA

---

DEFENSE ON MERITS – WHETHER THE APPELLANT’S AFFIDAVIT DISCLOSED A SUFFICIENT DEFENSE TO WARRANT TRANSFER TO THE GENERAL CAUSE LIST

---

“The Court found that the Appellant’s affidavit did not disclose a prima facie defense on the merits. The Appellant’s failure to respond to the business letters and invoices from the Respondent implied acceptance of the claim for legal fees. As such, there was no basis for transferring the suit to the general cause list.”
– Per JOSEPH OLUBUNMI KAYODE OYEWOLE, JCA

 

---

CASES CITED

---

 

---

STATUTES REFERRED TO

---