INTERNATIONAL BANK FOR WEST AFRICA LTD VS IMANO (NIGERIA) LIMITED & ANOR - Legalpedia | The Complete Lawyer - Research | Productivity | Health

INTERNATIONAL BANK FOR WEST AFRICA LTD VS IMANO (NIGERIA) LIMITED & ANOR

NATHANIEL MBENU & ANOR VS THE STATE
July 17, 2025
IDOWU SALAMI VS THE STATE
July 17, 2025
NATHANIEL MBENU & ANOR VS THE STATE
July 17, 2025
IDOWU SALAMI VS THE STATE
July 17, 2025
Show all

INTERNATIONAL BANK FOR WEST AFRICA LTD VS IMANO (NIGERIA) LIMITED & ANOR

Legalpedia Citation: (1988-07) Legalpedia 49033 (SC)

In the Supreme Court of Nigeria

Holden At Lagos

Thu Jul 7, 1988

Suit Number: SC. 1/1988

CORAM


WALI, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT


PARTIES


INTERNATIONAL BANK FOR WEST AFRICA LTD

APPELLANTS 


IMANO (NIGERIA) LIMITEDUNITY LIFE & FIRE INS. CO. LTD.

RESPONDENTS 


AREA(S) OF LAW


CIVIL PROCEDURE – LEGAL PRACTITIONERS – RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT – APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL

 


SUMMARY OF FACTS

The plaintiff Bank sued the defendants Companies, for the sum of N238, 285.27 being amount payable jointly and severally by the Defendants to the Plaintiff. The trial Judge found for the plaintiff and The defendants appealed, After the defendants’ appeal has been entered in the Court of Appeal, the plaintiff bank, filed a preliminary objection that under Rule 31 (b) of the Rules of Professional Conduct in the Legal Profession Bayo Kehinde, Esq., SAN. A director of the first Defendant is not competent to appear as Counsel. The Court of Appeal rejected the preliminary objection.

 


HELD


That the section 31(a) (i) of the Rules do not cover a legal practitioner who is a director of a company and who is not in receipt of directors’ fees from accepting a brief from his company.

 


ISSUES


Whether a legal practitioner (more particularly a Senior Advocate of Nigeria) is competent to appear as Counsel for a company of which he is a director, which is a Party to an action, whether or not he is in receipt of fees as a director of that Company.

 


RATIONES DECIDENDI


MISCHIEF RULE OF INTERPRETATION


‘In applying the mischief rule the construction of a statutory provision will not be strained to include cases plainly omitted from the natural meaning of the words of the statute.’ Per. A. G. O. AGBAJE, JSC.

 


CASES CITED


R. v. Trafford (1850) 15 Q.B. 200,

Adler v. George (1964) 2 Q.B. 7 at 9

Attorney- General for the Province of Ontario & Ors. v. Attorney-General for the Dominion of Canada (1912) AC. 571 at pages 583 – 584

Income Tax Commissioners v. Pemse (1891) AC. 534 at 543.

in Nafiu Rabiu v. Kano State (1980) 8 – 11 SC. 130 at 149-150:-

Magor and St. Mellons Rural District Council v. Newport Corporation (1952) AC. 189.

Fisher v. Bell (1960) 3 WLR. 919 at 922

 

 


STATUTES REFERRED TO


Legal Practitioners Act 1975|

 


CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT 

Comments are closed.