CORAM

SAIDU TANKO HUSSAINI    JUSTICE OF THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NIGERIA

SIDI DAUDA

BAGE EUGENIA IYIZOBA J

PARTIES

EMMANUEL ARMAH ESQ APPELLANTS

RESPONDENTS

AREA(S) OF LAW

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The Appellant as Claimant instituted this suit at the High Court of Lagos State, Lagos Judicial Division against the Respondent as Defendant claiming the sum of N650, 000,000.00 (Six Hundred and Fifty Million Naira Only) being professional fees for legal services rendered to the Respondent as Defendant, in respect of which a bill of charges specifying work done has been sent to the Respondent and he failed to pay. The Appellant also claimed interest on the sum at the rate of 15% per annum from the date of the initial demand until the entire judgment is liquidated including the cost of the action. The Appellant’s case at the lower court is that instructions were given by the Respondent to Armah Law Chambers to prepare a set of documents to carry into effect a joint venture/partnership transaction between the Respondent (Chief Horsefall) and a Spanish company COPINASA SA QUESTO. The transaction was to be carried on under the auspices of COPINASA NIGERIA LIMITED. Pursuant to the said instructions four sets of Agreements were prepared, engrossed and sent to the law office of Chief Albert Korubo Horsefall for execution by the Respondent. The Appellant thereafter made a claim for the legal services rendered which prompted an exchange of correspondence, whereby the Respondent disclaimed liability for the fees, saying the instructions were given to Mrs. Armah personally (who died in the course of the dispute) as part of the retainer arrangement he had with her. The Appellant hence instituted the action under Summary Procedure Rules but the Respondent opposed the application. The court ruled that the defence was a sham and entered judgement for the Appellant. An appeal at the instance of the Respondent was allowed by the court which granted leave to the Respondent to defend the suit and ordered the matter to be tried before another judge. At the trial, the Respondents defence was that he had no solicitor/client relationship with the Appellant among others. The trial court dismissed the Appellant’s claims on the grounds that there was no evidence to establish a solicitor-client relationship between the Appellant and Respondent. His Lordship further held that Mrs. Tiena Armah had known and accepted from the onset that Copinasa Nigeria Ltd was to pay for the services rendered and therefore the Respondent could not be held liable for the fees. The Appellant, dissatisfied with the judgment has lodged the instant appeal at the Court of Appeal.

HELD

Appeal Dismissed

ISSUES

?    Whether on the totality of the evidence placed before the Court the defendant is not (sic) fact the contracting party having given instructions directly to the claimant??    Whether the claimant was at liberty to elect the party to sue in the circumstances of this case?

RATIONES DECIDENDI

CASES CITED

STATUTES REFERRED TO

Companies & Allied Matters Act 2004

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT