CASE TITLE: Huzzle Gil Enterprises Ltd & Anor v. Ibekwe (2023) LPELR-60622(CA)
JUDGMENT DATE: 16TH JUNE, 2023
PRACTICE AREA: LEGAL PRACTITIONER (RECOVERY OF PROFESSIONAL FEES)
LEAD JUDGMENT: JOSEPH EYO EKANEM, J.C.A.
SUMMARY OF JUDGMENT:
INTRODUCTION:
This appeal borders on Recovery of Legal Fees.
FACTS:
The respondent, a legal practitioner, was engaged by the appellants to represent the 1st appellant in six suits at the High Court of Ebonyi State. The suits are:
i. Suit No. HKW/29/2008: Spera In Deo Lt v Huzzle Gil Ent. Nig. Ltd.
ii. Suit No. HSK/18/2009: Huzzle Gil Nig. Ltd v Nna Francis Yawe.
iii. Suit No. HSK/19/2009: Huzzle Gil Nig. Ltd v John N. Okorie.
iv. Suit No. HSK/20/2009: Huzzle Gil Nig. Ltd v William Chukwu.
v. Suit No. HSK/21/2009: Huzzle Gil Nig. Ltd v G.M.Okeke.
vi. Suit No. HSK/22/2009: Huzzle Gil Nig. Ltd v K.C.Mark Int. Ltd.
The respondent successfully represented the 1st appellant in the said suits with the result that the first suit was dismissed in favour of the 1st appellant qua defendant, while the second to sixth suits were determined in its favour with the award of the sums claimed by the 1st appellant qua plaintiff in the said suits.
It was the case of the respondent that, in respect of Suit No. HKW/29/2008, the appellants agreed to pay him 10% of the sum claimed by the plaintiff in that suit, namely: N12,000,000.00, amounting to N1,200,000.00. After obtaining judgments in favour of the 1st appellant in respect of the other matters, and when the appellants refused to pay his fees in spite of demands by him, the respondent caused a bill of charges to the tune of N1,600,180.25 covering all the cases to be served on the appellants. The period of thirty days as required by law elapsed and the appellants failed to pay as demanded. The respondent therefore took out a writ of summons endorsed with a statement of claim at the High Court of Enugu State sitting in Enugu (the trial Court), claiming as follows against the appellants:
a. The sum of N1,600,180.25K being professional fees for work done between 26/9/2008 and 6/3/2013 for the appellants.
b. Interest calculated at the prevailing bank rate from February, 2015 until judgment.
The appellants filed a joint statement of defence denying the claim of the respondent and contended that, in respect of Suit No. HKW/29/2008, the 1st appellant never agreed to pay 10% of the sum claimed by the plaintiff in that suit. In regard to the other suits, it was their case that the 2nd appellant agreed to pay 10% of the judgment sum in each of the suits upon judgment and execution of the judgment (that is, the recovery of the judgment sum). It was their position that the respondent failed to honour the agreement.
The matter went to trial at which the respondent testified for himself as the PW1 and tendered several exhibits. The appellants testified through the 2nd appellant and tendered no exhibit. After taking written addresses, the trial Court, found in favour of the respondent and entered judgment for him in the following terms:
1. N1,200,000.00 being professional fee in respect of Suit No. HKW/29/2008.
2. 10% of the judgment sums in the remaining suits.
3. 10% post-judgment interest from the date of the judgment.
Aggrieved by the decision, the appellants appealed against the same.
ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION:
The Court of Appeal determined the appeal on the following issues:
“1. Whether the trial Court was right to have awarded to the respondent the sum of N1,200,000.00 (One Million Two Hundred Thousand Naira) as professional fees in respect of Suit No. HKW/29/2008; Spera in Deo Ltd v Huzzle Gil Enterprises Nigeria Limited?
2. Whether the trial Court was right in awarding to the respondent the contingent fee of 10% of the judgment sum in Suit No. HSK/18/2009: Huzzle Gil Enterprises Limited v Nna Francis Yawe; HSK/19/2009; Huzzle Gil Enterprises Limited v John Okolie; HSK/20/2009; Huzzle Gil Enterprises Limited v William Chukwu; HSK/21/2009: Huzzle Gil Enterprises Limited v G.M.Okeke and HSK/22/2009: Huzzle Gil Enterprises Limited v K.C.Mark International Limited?
3. Whether in the circumstances of this case, the respondent is entitled to interest as awarded by the trial Court?
4. Whether the trial Court was right in not striking out the name of the 2nd appellant from the suit?”
DECISION/HELD:
In conclusion, the appeal was allowed in part.
RATIOS:
- LEGAL PRACTITIONER – RIGHT OF A LEGAL PRACTITIONER – Right of legal practitioner to charge professional fees
- LEGAL PRACTITIONER – RECOVERY OF CHARGES BY LEGAL PRACTITIONERS – Right of a legal practitioner to recover professional charges by bill of charges
- LEGAL PRACTITIONER – RECOVERY OF CHARGES BY LEGAL PRACTITIONERS – Preconditions a legal practitioner must fulfill before commencing an action to recover fees upon a bill of charges
- CONTRACT – CONTINGENCY IN CONTRACT – Effect of a contract that is subject to the happening of a contingency
- LEGAL PRACTITIONER – PAYMENT OF LEGAL FEES – Whether payment of legal fees can be based on contingency agreement
Go to your primsol.lawpavilion.com dashboard to see more judgments or subscribe on store.lawpavilion.com
