CASE TITLE: FAGBEMI v. APC & ORS (2023) LPELR-61089 (CA)
JUDGMENT DATE: 13TH SEPTEMBER 2023
PRACTICE AREA: CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (LEGAL REPRESENTATION/RIGHT TO FAIR HEARING)
LEAD JUDGMENT: DANLAMI ZAMA SENCHI, J.C.A.
SUMMARY OF JUDGMENT:
INTRODUCTION:
This appeal borders on a breach of the right to a fair hearing.
FACTS:
This appeal is against the portion of the judgment of the Rivers State High Court in Suit No. BHC/78/2018 delivered by C. Nwogu, J.
The 2nd–24th Respondents (as Applicants) instituted Suit No. BHC/78/2018 against the 1st Respondent while the Appellant, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria, acted as the lead counsel on behalf of the 1st Respondent upon the instructions of the 1st Respondent. According to the Appellant, he appeared before the trial court on June 26th, 2018 and July 27th, 2018 respectively, leading some of his colleagues on behalf of the 1st Respondent sequel to the 1st Respondent’s letter dated June 21st, 2018 from its National body and signed by the National Legal Adviser, Dr. Muiz Banire, SAN.
On June 26, 2018, when the Appellant appeared before the trial court, there was an argument between the Appellant and one F.C. Nwafor, Esq., who was briefed by the Rivers State chapter of the 1st Respondent over legal representation on behalf of the 1st Respondent (APC). The Court, after hearing arguments from the parties, adjourned for a ruling.
While the ruling was still being awaited, the 1st Respondent (APC), through the Head of Legal Services, wrote another letter in which it asked the Appellant to cease appearing for it in the suit. The Appellant stated that the said letter was not served on him until late in the evening of August 2, 2018, at his Abuja office. However, the Counsel to the Claimants (2nd–24th Respondents) had a copy of the said letter.
In another letter issued by the same Head of Legal Services a day after the ruling on legal representation of the 1st Respondent (APC), the 1st Respondent, upon further review of the suit, restored the Appellant’s instruction and authority to continue to act as its counsel in the said suit before the trial court. Appellant filed a motion before the court in which he exhibited the said letter.
The Appellant further stated that the learned trial Judge devoted a considerable length of the judgment to disparaging him. He posited that this prevented the Court from appreciating the fact that, from the record, there were more than sufficient materials justifying the legal representation of the 1st Respondent by the Appellant at the material time. Aggrieved with the part of the trial Court’s judgment, the Appellant, filed a motion on notice seeking leave of the Court to appeal as a person having interest in the judgment given. The application for leave to appeal was granted, hence the filing of this appeal.
ISSUE(S) FOR DETERMINATION:
The following issues were resolved in the appeal:
“1. Having regard to the relevant letter(s) of instruction in the records of the trial Court, whether the trial Court was right that the Appellant, at the material time, did not have the authority and instruction of the All Progressives Congress (APC) to act as Counsel on its behalf so as to warrant the trial Court’s castigation of the Appellant?
2. Considering the entire circumstances of the case and the record of the trial Court whether the trial Court was right to have castigated the Appellant (who merely acted as counsel) and ascribed or attributed acts of unethical behavior or misconduct to the Appellant, without affording him a hearing, in breach of his constitutional right to a fair hearing?”
DECISION/HELD:
The appeal was allowed, and the relevant portion of the judgment appealed against was expunged from all the records in the case.
RATIO(S):
• JUDGMENT AND ORDER – JUDGMENT OF COURT – Whether the judgment of the Court must involve a consideration of all correspondences/documents/evidence tendered by the parties
• LEGAL PRACTITIONER – LEGAL REPRESENTATION – Whether it is the National Legal Adviser of a political party that has the power to arrange representation for the party in legal matters
• EVIDENCE – SUSPICION – Definition of suspicion; attitude of Court to same
• CONSTITUTIONAL LAW – BREACH OF RIGHT TO FAIR HEARING – Instance where it can be said that a right to fair hearing has been breached
• COURT – RAISING ISSUE(S) SUO MOTU – Whether a Court can raise an issue suo motu and determine it without hearing parties
• CONSTITUTIONAL LAW – BREACH OF RIGHT TO FAIR HEARING – Effect of breach of right to fair hearing.
• COURT – DUTY OF JUDGE – Duty of judge as a judicial Officer.
To read the full judgment or similar judgments, subscribe to Prime or Primsol
