Can the Court Question a Counsel’s Authority to Appear Where He States That He Has Been Instructed to Represent a Client?

CASE TITLE: PINNACLE COMMUNICATIONS LTD v. CAC & ORS (2024) LPELR-62423(CA)

JUDGMENT DATE: 7TH JUNE, 2024

PRACTICE AREA: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

LEAD JUDGMENT: ABBA BELLO MOHAMMED, J.C.A.

SUMMARY OF JUDGMENT:

INTRODUCTION:

This is a ruling on an application for leave for counsel to be heard on behalf of the Appellant/Applicant.

FACTS:

In this application, Ama Etuwewe SAN of Ama Etuwewe (SAN) & Co., sought leave of the Court to be heard on behalf of the Appellant/Applicant and prayed for an order striking out the notices of this appeal which were filed on behalf of the Appellant/Applicant by Aliyu Lemu Esq of Aliyu Lemu & Co. on July 15, 2021, and by Dapo Akinosun, SAN of Simmons Coopers Partners on July 29, 2021, on the ground that the notices were not authorized by the Appellant/Applicant.

​What the Applicant was essentially questioning, therefore, was the authority of those who briefed Aliyu Lemu Esq and Dapo Akinosun SAN to represent the Appellant as well as the legal representation of the Appellant by Aliyu Lemu Esq and Dapo Akinosun, SAN.

From the depositions contained in the supporting affidavit of Dipo Onifade, the basis upon which the Applicant has challenged the authority of Aliyu Lemu Esq and Dapo Akinosun SAN to institute this appeal is that the two directors of the Appellant have all died, leaving only the Deponent, Dipo Onifade, the secretary of the Appellant. After the deaths of the two directors of the Appellant, the suit leading to this appeal was instituted in the name of the Appellant before the Federal High Court by Mrs. Orumenosen Omoluwa, the wife of the late Sir Lucky Omoluwa, one of the deceased directors of the Appellant who obtained an order of the Federal High Court made on July 27, 2020, authorizing the appointment of new directors for the Appellant, as a result of which Mrs. Omoluwa appointed herself, Emanuel Imana and Joshua Omoluwa as directors of the Appellant and also reallocated the shares of the Appellant, all without the consent of Dipo Onifade who is the company secretary.

Upon learning of this development, the other children, beneficiaries, and personal representatives of the late directors applied to the Federal High Court to have the order of July 27, 2020, set aside. In a considered ruling/judgment made on July 14, 2021, the Federal High Court set aside its earlier order of July 27, 2020.

It is against the Federal High Court Ruling/Judgment of July 14, 2021, that the Appellant, represented by Aliyu Lemu, Esq., and Dapo Akinosun, SAN, has brought this appeal.

ISSUE(S) FOR DETERMINATION:

The Court determined the application on a sole issue thus:

“Whether in the circumstance of this case, this application can be granted.”

DECISION/HELD:

In conclusion, the Court dismissed the application.

RATIOS:

• COURT- DUTY OF COURT: Duty of court not to determine a substantive matter at an interlocutory stage
• LEGAL PRACTITIONER- AUTHORITY OF COUNSEL: Whether where Counsel appears in Court and states that he is instructed, the Court can question his authority to appear
• LEGAL PRACTITIONER- LEGAL REPRESENTATION: Who determines legal representation

To read the full judgment or similar judgments, subscribe to Prime or Primsol