ADEDEJI OYEWUNMI VS THE STATE
August 28, 2025AKPANKERE APISHE & ORS VS THE STATE
August 28, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (1971) Legalpedia (SC) 16177
In the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Mon Feb 15, 1971
Suit Number: SC 157/1970
CORAM
ADEMOLA, CHIEF JUSTICE NIGERIA
COKER, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
MADARIKAN, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
PARTIES
LEGAL PRACTITIONERS DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL APPELLANTS
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
Mr. Idowu, a legal practitioner, while an employee of the E.C.N. received a sum of £1,910 out of the compensation money due to the Ojora Chieftaincy family, a total of which was £14,000. It was paid to him by Mr. Hakeem Habeeb who was the solicitor for the family. A complaint was therefore made against him to the LPDT.
HELD
Mr. Idowu, a legal practitioner, while an employee of the E.C.N. received a sum of £1,910 out of the compensation money due to the Ojora Chieftaincy family, a total of which was £14,000. It was paid to him by Mr. Hakeem Habeeb who was the solicitor for the family. A complaint was therefore made against him to the LPDT.
ISSUES
Whether the (1) That Section 7 of the Legal Practitioners Act No. 33 of 1962, states in effect that the infamous conduct complained of is in professional respect, and that under the relevant Section 7(1)(a), a legal practitioner cannot be punished for all misconducts, but only misconducts in any professional capacity or respect.
Was it right for the Tribunal to have called witnesses in order to prove the guilt of the practitioner?
RATIONES DECIDENDI
THE MEANING OF SECTION 7 OF THE LEGAL PRACTITIONERS ACT NO. 33 OF 1962
It seems to us that in interpreting this enactment it is not enough that the practitioner be guilty of infamous conduct only, but it must be such conduct arising out of or pertaining to his profession… We approve of this interpretation of the relevant section (7) under consideration, and cannot believe that it was ever intended that infamous
CALLING WITNESS AFTER CLOSE OF DEFENCE
At the close of the case of the defence, that was an end of the complaint before the court, and the only evidence which could be allowed, at the discretion of the court, was evidence of rebuttal if the accused person had given evidence. Per Ademola, CJN
THE MEANING OF SECTION 7 OF THE LEGAL PRACTITIONERS ACT NO. 33 OF 1962
It seems to us that in interpreting this enactment it is not enough that the practitioner be guilty of infamous conduct only, but it must be such conduct arising out of or pertaining to his profession… We approve of this interpretation of the relevant section (7) under consideration, and cannot believe that it was ever intended that infamous conduct which has no relevance whatever to the profession of the professional before the Tribunal was ever contemplated. Per Ademola, CJN
RECORD KEEPING OF THE COURT
We must once again point out that all Exhibits tendered and admitted in evidence in any case must be kept by the Court or Tribunal which hears the case for the statutory period and later to be sent up to this Court with other records of appeal, when there is an appeal. Per Ademola, CJN
CASES CITED
Dr. E.O.A. Denloye v. Medical & Dental Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal, SC. 91/68
Dickson Ejukoleru v. Inspector-General of Police, 15 WACA. 161.
Ex-Parte Meehan (1965) New South Wales (Australia) Report 30
STATUTES REFERRED TO
Legal Practitioners Act No. 33 of 1962
Legal Practitioners (Disciplinary Tribunal) Rules, 1965
