CORAM
BODE RHODES VIVOUR JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
MARY UKAEGO PETER ODILI JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
BODE RHODES VIVOUR JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
PARTIES
ROTIMI WILLIAMS AKINTOKUN APPELLANTS
LEGAL PRACTITIONERS DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE (LPDC)
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The facts leading to this case are that a complaint was levied against the Appellant, a legal practitioner practicing under the name and style of ROTIMI WILLIAMS AKINTOKUN AND COMPANY of 75B, Coker Road, Ilupeju, Lagos. The complaint emanated from a petition written against him to the Nigeria Bar Association by his client who alleged that the Appellant had deliberately misled them regarding and alleged acquisition of their land by the Lagos State Government among other acts of professional misconduct. After the completion of the hearing by the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee of the Body of Benchers, a direction was given that the Chief Registrar of the Supreme Court should strike off the name of the Appellant from the Roll as a legal practitioner in Nigeria. The Appellant being dissatisfied by the decision of the LPDC lodged the instant appeal, but on the hearing date, the panel raised suo motu the issue of jurisdiction in view of the courts recent decision in Aladejobi V Nigerian Bar Association. Appeal No.SC.121/2011, delivered on the 12th day of July, 2013 (now reported in (2013) 15 NWLR (PT.1376) 66).
HELD
Appeal Struck out
ISSUES
1. Whether in view of its recent decision in JIDE ALADEJOBI V. NIGERIAN BAR ASSOCIATION, the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to entertain the instant appeal against the direction of the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee?
RATIONES DECIDENDI
JURISDICTION OF COURT – A COURT WOULD NOT OUST ITS JURISDICTION WHERE THE PROVISIONS OF A STATUTE HAVE NOT EXPRESSLY OR IMPLIEDLY OUST THE JURISDICTION OF A COURT
“The provisions of Section 233 subsection (1) of the 1999 Constitution have not in any way ousted the jurisdiction either expressly or impliedly of the Supreme Court to hear appeal from the Disciplinary Committee. Therefore in the absence of any express provision in the Constitution which ousts the jurisdiction of the court, we should be very reluctant to hold that the jurisdiction has been ousted – See African Newspapers of Nigeria &Ors. v. The Federal Republic of Nigeria (1985) 2 NWLR (Pt.6) 137 Anakwanze v Aneke&Ors. (1988) 2 NSCC 798 at P.803 and A-G of Lagos State v A-G of the Federation, (2004) 11 – 12 S.C. 85 at page 112; (2004) 18 NWLR (Pt. 904) 1 at page 89 H. This court does not readily oust its jurisdiction. In principle, it jealously protects the jurisdiction”. PER M. U. PETER-ODILI, J.S.C.
LEGISLATURE – DUTY OF THE LEGISLATURE – NECESSITY OF LEGAL PRACTITIONERS IN ASSISTING THE LEGISLATURE IN THE ENACTMENT OF LAWS
“It is the duty of the legislature to make and produce laws for public consumption and guidance. I think there is dare need for legal practitioners to be of great assistance not only to the courts but to the Legislature in making our laws certain and clear”. PER I. T. MUHAMMAD, J.S.C.
REMEDY – ALL REMEDIES PRESCRIBED BY STATUTE MUST BE EXHAUSTED BEFORE EMBARKING ON LITIGATION.
“The well settled principle of the law is as pronounced by Belgore, JSC (as he then was) in the case of Egwumwense v Amaghizemwen (1993) 9 NWLR (Pt.315) 1 at p.25
“Where a statute prescribes a legal line of action for determination of an issue be that issue an administrative matter, chieftaincy matter or a matter of taxation, the aggrieved party must exhaust all the remedies in that law before going to court. The provision of sections 21 and S.22(1) – 6 of Traditional Rulers and Chiefs Edict (No.16) 1979 (Bendel State) are clear as to steps to take. The plaintiff seemed to have jumped the stile as he avoided all avenues that availed him and went to the High Court. This court is not asked nor were the lower courts fully adverted to S.22(4)(a) and (b) (supra) and I shall not pronounce per incuriam on that subsection, but suffice to say here that provisions of S.22(5) and (6) have amply provided for redress which the plaintiff failed to seize advantage of. The provisions of S.236 of the 1979 Constitution is not an open gate for all High Courts to assume jurisdiction in all subjects. All remedies in the statute on every subject must be exhausted before embarking on actual litigation in court.” PER I. T. MUHAMMAD, J.S.C.
JUDICIAL POWERS – JUDICIAL POWERS DEVOLVES ON THE COURT
“The judicial powers defined by law, in our case, the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, and of course other enabling laws, are as set out in these laws for instance, the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) provides as follows:
“6(1) The Judicial powers of the Federation shall be vested in the courts to which this section relates, being courts established for the Federation.
(2) The Judicial Powers of a State shall be vested in the courts to which this Section relates, being courts established subject as provided by this Constitution, for a state.” PER I. T. MUHAMMAD, J.S.C.
JURISDICTION OF COURT – A COURT WOULD NOT OUST ITS JURISDICTION WHERE THE PROVISIONS OF A STATUTE HAVE NOT EXPRESSLY OR IMPLIEDLY OUST THE JURISDICTION OF A COURT
“The provisions of Section 233 subsection (1) of the 1999 Constitution have not in any way ousted the jurisdiction either expressly or impliedly of the Supreme Court to hear appeal from the Disciplinary Committee. Therefore in the absence of any express provision in the Constitution which ousts the jurisdiction of the court, we should be very reluctant to hold that the jurisdiction has been ousted – See African Newspapers of Nigeria &Ors. v. The Federal Republic of Nigeria (1985) 2 NWLR (Pt.6) 137 Anakwanze v Aneke&Ors. (1988) 2 NSCC 798 at P.803 and A-G of Lagos State v A-G of the Federation, (2004) 11 – 12 S.C. 85 at page 112; (2004) 18 NWLR (Pt. 904) 1 at page 89 H. This court does not readily oust its jurisdiction. In principle, it jealously protects the jurisdiction”. PER M. U. PETER-ODILI, J.S.C.
JURISDICTION OF COURTS – THE COURTS SHOULD BE RELUCTANT TO HOLD THAT ITS JURISDICTION HAS BEEN OUSTED.
“In the absence of express and clear provisions in the Constitution or statute which ousts the jurisdiction of the Court, the Court should be very reluctant to hold that its jurisdiction has been ousted. See African Newspapers of Nigeria &Ors. v. The Federal Republic of Nigeria (1985) 2 N.W.L.R. (Pt.6) 137, Anakwenze v. Aneke&Ors. (1988) 2 N.S.C.C. 798 at 803 and Attorney-General of Lagos State v. Attorney-General of the Federation (2004) 18 N.W.L.R. (Pt.904) 1 at 89.” PER M. MUHAMMED, J.S.C.
CONTENT OF AN ENACTMENT – MARGINAL NOTES DO NOT FORM PART OF AN ENACTMENT
“The law is well settled that marginal notes do not form part of an enactment and are for convenience or reference only.
It is also settled that statutes are not repealed by implication but by direct provisions of law. See: Ibidapo vs. Lufthansa Airlines (1997) 4 NWLR (Pt.498) 124”. PER K.M.O. KEREKE-EKUN, J.S.C
REMEDY – ALL REMEDIES PRESCRIBED BY STATUTE MUST BE EXHAUSTED BEFORE EMBARKING ON LITIGATION.
“The well settled principle of the law is as pronounced by Belgore, JSC (as he then was) in the case of Egwumwense v Amaghizemwen (1993) 9 NWLR (Pt.315) 1 at p.25
“Where a statute prescribes a legal line of action for determination of an issue be that issue an administrative matter, chieftaincy matter or a matter of taxation, the aggrieved party must exhaust all the remedies in that law before going to court. The provision of sections 21 and S.22(1) – 6 of Traditional Rulers and Chiefs Edict (No.16) 1979 (Bendel State) are clear as to steps to take. The plaintiff seemed to have jumped the stile as he avoided all avenues that availed him and went to the High Court. This court is not asked nor were the lower courts fully adverted to S.22(4)(a) and (b) (supra) and I shall not pronounce per incuriam on that subsection, but suffice to say here that provisions of S.22(5) and (6) have amply provided for redress which the plaintiff failed to seize advantage of. The provisions of S.236 of the 1979 Constitution is not an open gate for all High Courts to assume jurisdiction in all subjects. All remedies in the statute on every subject must be exhausted before embarking on actual litigation in court.” PER I. T. MUHAMMAD, J.S.C.
STATUTES – STATUTES ARE REPEALED BY DIRECT PROVISION OF THE LAW
“It is a cardinal principal of the law that statutes are not repealed by inference or implication but by direct provision of the law. See: Raleigh Industries Limited Vs. Nwaizu [1994] 4 NWLR [Part 341] 260 at page 771. The Court will not imply a repeal unless two Acts are so plainly repugnant to each other that effect cannot be given to both at the same time. See: Uwaifo Vs. Attorney-General Of Bendel State [1982] 7 SC. 124 at page 191; Olu Of Warri Vs. Kperegbeyi [1994] 4 NWLR [Part 339] 416.” PER I. T. MUHAMMAD, J.S.C.
LEGISLATURE – DUTY OF THE LEGISLATURE – NECESSITY OF LEGAL PRACTITIONERS IN ASSISTING THE LEGISLATURE IN THE ENACTMENT OF LAWS
“It is the duty of the legislature to make and produce laws for public consumption and guidance. I think there is dare need for legal practitioners to be of great assistance not only to the courts but to the Legislature in making our laws certain and clear”. PER I. T. MUHAMMAD, J.S.C.
JURISDICTION OF COURTS – THE COURTS SHOULD BE RELUCTANT TO HOLD THAT ITS JURISDICTION HAS BEEN OUSTED.
“In the absence of express and clear provisions in the Constitution or statute which ousts the jurisdiction of the Court, the Court should be very reluctant to hold that its jurisdiction has been ousted. See African Newspapers of Nigeria &Ors. v. The Federal Republic of Nigeria (1985) 2 N.W.L.R. (Pt.6) 137, Anakwenze v. Aneke&Ors. (1988) 2 N.S.C.C. 798 at 803 and Attorney-General of Lagos State v. Attorney-General of the Federation (2004) 18 N.W.L.R. (Pt.904) 1 at 89.” PER M. MUHAMMED, J.S.C.
LEGISLATIONS – INSTANCES WHERE THE REPEAL OF AN ENACTMENT CAN BE IMPLIED OR INFERRED
“In Law, therefore, there are circumstances in which a repeal of an enactment can be implied or inferred and that is where two acts of the legislature are plainly repugnant to each other that effect cannot be given to both at the same time. Thus, repeal by implication cannot be prohibited where circumstances warrant. See: Ellan Street Estates Limited Vs. Minister Of Health [Supra].” PER I. T. MUHAMMAD, J.S.C.
JUDICIAL POWERS – JUDICIAL POWERS DEVOLVES ON THE COURT
“The judicial powers defined by law, in our case, the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, and of course other enabling laws, are as set out in these laws for instance, the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) provides as follows:
“6(1) The Judicial powers of the Federation shall be vested in the courts to which this section relates, being courts established for the Federation.
(2) The Judicial Powers of a State shall be vested in the courts to which this Section relates, being courts established subject as provided by this Constitution, for a state.” PER I. T. MUHAMMAD, J.S.C.
STATUTES – STATUTES ARE REPEALED BY DIRECT PROVISION OF THE LAW
“It is a cardinal principal of the law that statutes are not repealed by inference or implication but by direct provision of the law. See: Raleigh Industries Limited Vs. Nwaizu [1994] 4 NWLR [Part 341] 260 at page 771. The Court will not imply a repeal unless two Acts are so plainly repugnant to each other that effect cannot be given to both at the same time. See: Uwaifo Vs. Attorney-General Of Bendel State [1982] 7 SC. 124 at page 191; Olu Of Warri Vs. Kperegbeyi [1994] 4 NWLR [Part 339] 416.” PER I. T. MUHAMMAD, J.S.C.
LEGISLATIONS – INSTANCES WHERE THE REPEAL OF AN ENACTMENT CAN BE IMPLIED OR INFERRED
“In Law, therefore, there are circumstances in which a repeal of an enactment can be implied or inferred and that is where two acts of the legislature are plainly repugnant to each other that effect cannot be given to both at the same time. Thus, repeal by implication cannot be prohibited where circumstances warrant. See: Ellan Street Estates Limited Vs. Minister Of Health [Supra].” PER I. T. MUHAMMAD, J.S.C.
DECISION OF COURT – CIRCUMSTANCES THAT MAY WARRANT THE SUPREME COURT TO OVERRULE ITSELF ON ITS PREVIOUS DECISION
“On this matter of overruling itself, the case of Nnubia v Attorney-General of Rivers State & 2 Ors. (2009) 40 NSCQR 90 at 155 – 156 is instructive and I shall refer to it and thus I quote:
“It is trite that this court as an Apex will be wary to overrule itself or depart from its previous decisions on the persuasive and eloquent submission of counsel but will not hesitate to do so when there is urgent need to revisit the law. The need to depart from any previous decision of this court must be strong and substantial and must be done in the interest of justice. They include the under mentioned instances:
(1) Where it is shown that the previous decision is inconsistent with the Constitution or erroneous in law.
(2) Where the previous decision was given per in curiam.
(3) Where two decisions are in conflict.
(4) Where it is shown that the precious decision is occasioning a miscarriage of justice or perpetrating injustice or contrary to public policy.
(5) When there has been new development in the socio-economic or political stance of the country especially when the matter under consideration is a matter provided for by the Constitution.
(6) Where the decision is capable of fettering the exercise of judicial discretion by court.
There is no hard and fast rule exhausting the area within which to warrant a departure from a previous decision. Each case must be decided on its special facts and circumstances with a view to avoid perpetrating injustice which is the determining factor in this respect”. Per O. O. Adekeye, JSC at pages 155 – 156.” PER M. U. PETER-ODILI, J.S.C.
LEGISLATIONS – WHEN AN AMENDMENT OR REPEAL OF AN ENACTMENT WOULD BE IMPLIED.
“I think, the law is that where a later enactment does not expressly amend [whether textually or indirectly] an earlier enactment, but the provisions of the later enactment are inconsistent with those of the earlier, the later by implication, amends the earlier so far as is necessary to remove the inconsistency between them. This is because, if a later Act cannot stand with an earlier one, parliament, generally, is taken to intend an amendment of the earlier. This is a logical necessity, since two inconsistent texts cannot both be valid. If the entirety of the earlier enactment is inconsistent, the effect amounts to an implied repeal of it. Similarly, a part of the earlier enactment may be regarded as impliedly repealed where it cannot stand with the later. An intention to repeal an Act or enactment may be inferred from the nature of the provision made by the later enactment. The Latin maxim puts it that LEGES POSTERIORES PRIORES CONTRARIAS ABROGANT [later laws abrogate prior contrary laws] See: Ellen Street Estates Limited Vs. Minister Of Health [1934] 1 K.B. 590 at pages 595 – 596; Re-Williams Jones Vs. Williams [1887] 16 CHD 573 at page 578.” PER I. T. MUHAMMAD, J.S.C.
APPEALS FROM THE LEGAL PRACTITIONER DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE – PROCEDURE FOR APPEALING FROM THE DECISION OF THE LEGAL PRACTITIONER DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE
“The Act mandates an aspiring appellant to go through the Appeal Committee of the Body of Benchers first before approaching the Supreme Court. If that has not been complied with, then any attempt to lodge an appeal direct to this court would be futile… PER M. U. PETER-ODILI, J.S.C.
PROVISION OF A STATUTE – DUTY ON PARTIES TO ADHERE TO THE PROVISION OF A STATUTE WHICH PRESCRIBES PROCEDURE FOR INITIATING COURT PROCESS
“It is the law that where a statute prescribes a legal line of action for initiating court process, all remedies in the statute should be duly followed to the letter”. PER I. T. MUHAMMAD, J.S.C.
LEGISLATIONS – WHEN AN AMENDMENT OR REPEAL OF AN ENACTMENT WOULD BE IMPLIED.
“I think, the law is that where a later enactment does not expressly amend [whether textually or indirectly] an earlier enactment, but the provisions of the later enactment are inconsistent with those of the earlier, the later by implication, amends the earlier so far as is necessary to remove the inconsistency between them. This is because, if a later Act cannot stand with an earlier one, parliament, generally, is taken to intend an amendment of the earlier. This is a logical necessity, since two inconsistent texts cannot both be valid. If the entirety of the earlier enactment is inconsistent, the effect amounts to an implied repeal of it. Similarly, a part of the earlier enactment may be regarded as impliedly repealed where it cannot stand with the later. An intention to repeal an Act or enactment may be inferred from the nature of the provision made by the later enactment. The Latin maxim puts it that LEGES POSTERIORES PRIORES CONTRARIAS ABROGANT [later laws abrogate prior contrary laws] See: Ellen Street Estates Limited Vs. Minister Of Health [1934] 1 K.B. 590 at pages 595 – 596; Re-Williams Jones Vs. Williams [1887] 16 CHD 573 at page 578.” PER I. T. MUHAMMAD, J.S.C.
DECISION OF COURT – CIRCUMSTANCES THAT MAY WARRANT THE SUPREME COURT TO OVERRULE ITSELF ON ITS PREVIOUS DECISION
“On this matter of overruling itself, the case of Nnubia v Attorney-General of Rivers State & 2 Ors. (2009) 40 NSCQR 90 at 155 – 156 is instructive and I shall refer to it and thus I quote:
“It is trite that this court as an Apex will be wary to overrule itself or depart from its previous decisions on the persuasive and eloquent submission of counsel but will not hesitate to do so when there is urgent need to revisit the law. The need to depart from any previous decision of this court must be strong and substantial and must be done in the interest of justice. They include the under mentioned instances:
(1) Where it is shown that the previous decision is inconsistent with the Constitution or erroneous in law.
(2) Where the previous decision was given per in curiam.
(3) Where two decisions are in conflict.
(4) Where it is shown that the precious decision is occasioning a miscarriage of justice or perpetrating injustice or contrary to public policy.
(5) When there has been new development in the socio-economic or political stance of the country especially when the matter under consideration is a matter provided for by the Constitution.
(6) Where the decision is capable of fettering the exercise of judicial discretion by court.
There is no hard and fast rule exhausting the area within which to warrant a departure from a previous decision. Each case must be decided on its special facts and circumstances with a view to avoid perpetrating injustice which is the determining factor in this respect”. Per O. O. Adekeye, JSC at pages 155 – 156.” PER M. U. PETER-ODILI, J.S.C.
CONTENT OF AN ENACTMENT – MARGINAL NOTES DO NOT FORM PART OF AN ENACTMENT
“The law is well settled that marginal notes do not form part of an enactment and are for convenience or reference only.
It is also settled that statutes are not repealed by implication but by direct provisions of law. See: Ibidapo vs. Lufthansa Airlines (1997) 4 NWLR (Pt.498) 124”. PER K.M.O. KEREKE-EKUN, J.S.C
APPEALS FROM THE LEGAL PRACTITIONER DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE – EFFECT OF FAILURE OF A PARTY TO CHANNEL HIS APPEAL THROUGH THE APPEAL COMMITTEE
“Thus, failure by the appellant to first channel his appeal through the Appeal Committee as established by the Act is defective and affects the competence of the court. See: Madukolu v Nkemdilim (1962) 1 ALL NLR 587 at 594, (1962) 2 SCNLR 341. PER M. U. PETER-ODILI, J.S.C.
PROVISION OF A STATUTE – DUTY ON PARTIES TO ADHERE TO THE PROVISION OF A STATUTE WHICH PRESCRIBES PROCEDURE FOR INITIATING COURT PROCESS
“It is the law that where a statute prescribes a legal line of action for initiating court process, all remedies in the statute should be duly followed to the letter”. PER I. T. MUHAMMAD, J.S.C.
APPEALS FROM THE LEGAL PRACTITIONER DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE – PROCEDURE FOR APPEALING FROM THE DECISION OF THE LEGAL PRACTITIONER DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE
“The Act mandates an aspiring appellant to go through the Appeal Committee of the Body of Benchers first before approaching the Supreme Court. If that has not been complied with, then any attempt to lodge an appeal direct to this court would be futile… PER M. U. PETER-ODILI, J.S.C.
APPEALS FROM THE LEGAL PRACTITIONER DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE – EFFECT OF FAILURE OF A PARTY TO CHANNEL HIS APPEAL THROUGH THE APPEAL COMMITTEE
“Thus, failure by the appellant to first channel his appeal through the Appeal Committee as established by the Act is defective and affects the competence of the court. See: Madukolu v Nkemdilim (1962) 1 ALL NLR 587 at 594, (1962) 2 SCNLR 341. PER M. U. PETER-ODILI, J.S.C.
CASES CITED
STATUTES REFERRED TO
Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999(as amended)Legal Practitioners (Amendment) Decree No. 21 of 1994.Legal Practitioners Act Cap 101 of the Laws of the Federation and Lagos 1958Legal Practitioners Act Cap. L11, Laws of the Federation, 2004Legal Practitioners Act, 1962, No. 33Legal Practitioners Act, Cap 207 of the LFN, 1990Revised Edition (Laws of the Federation of Nigeria) Act, 2007
CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT