Requirements A Legal Practitioner Must Meet Before Initiating an Action To Recover His Professional Fees

CASE TITLE: VAL OIL TRADING S. A. & ANOR v. AMARAN (2023) LPELR-61242(CA)

JUDGMENT DATE: 20TH JULY, 2023

JUSTICES: JOSEPH SHAGBAOR IKYEGH, JCA
EBIOWEI TOBI, JCA
BATURE ISAH GAFAI, JCA
DIVISION: LAGOS

PRACTICE AREA: RECOVERY OF CHARGES BY LEGAL PRACTITIONERS

FACTS:
The appeal is from a decision of the Federal High Court sitting in Lagos, whereby the Court entered judgment on the undefended list for a claim of professional fees of the respondent, a legal practitioner, in the sum of US $297,500 against the appellants.

The respondent qua legal practitioner, had by his action on the undefended list claimed at the trial court an order that the appellants pay the sum of US$297,500 in respect of his professional services in arbitration proceedings in suit No. LMDC/09-17/279/WIA or in any other proceedings in accordance with the executed agreement between the parties dated July 19, 2017 for the sale agreement in respect of the vessel MT./Lona dated February 12, 2017 between the 2nd respondent and the 3rd defendant.

The Trial Court entered judgment on the undefended list as claimed in favour of the respondent against the appellants. The appellants were unhappy with the decision and filed a notice of appeal against it.

The respondent filed a notice of preliminary objection urging that the notice of appeal be dismissed for being incompetent and invalid.

ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION:
The appeal was determined on its merits.

COUNSEL SUBMISSIONS:
The appellants argued that the trial Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the action for recovery of professional fees because the conditions precedent, such as preparation and service of the bill of charges, were not fulfilled. Several cases were cited to support their contention. Additionally, they argued that the claimed sum was not liquidated and was dependent on the outcome of an arbitration claim that was not recovered, thus the action should not have been brought under the undefended list.

On the other hand, the respondent countered that the trial Court had already settled its jurisdiction to entertain the action in a previous ruling, which was not appealed against. Several cases and statutory provisions were cited to support their argument. Furthermore, it was claimed that there was an entitlement to a portion of the recovered sum based on the irrevocable agreement between the parties. It was also emphasized the Court’s role in enforcing contracts as written, rather than rewriting them.

DECISION/HELD:
The appeal was allowed.

RATIO:

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

“It is incontestable from the processes filed that the respondent did not comply with the three conditions precedent to wit: – to prepare the bill of charge; to serve it on the appellants; and to wait for one month to lapse from service of the bill of charges to commence the action as provided by Section 16(1) of the Legal Practitioners Act read with the cases (supra) cited by the appellants and the fairly recent Supreme Court case of Thompson and Anor v. Barrister Gbenga Akingbehin (2021) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1802) 283 at 303, 306, 322-322 to the cumulative effect that the three conditions that must be met before a legal practitioner can commence an action for recovery of his fees are that, he must prepare a bill of charges or a bill for the charges which must particularize the principal items of his claim; he must serve his client with the bill; and he must allow a period of one month to elapse from the date the bill of charges was served under Section 16(2)(b) of the Legal Practitioners Act before filing the action, and that failure to comply with or fulfil these conditions precedent would render the entire action and the subsequent trial a nullity, no matter how well conducted, placing reliance on the cases of Madukolu v. Nkemdilim (1962) 2 SCNLR 341, Saude v. Abdullahi (1989) 4 NWLR (Pt. 116) 397, Nigeria Dev. Co. Ltd V. Adamawa State Water Board (2008) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1093) 498.” Per IKYEGH, J.C.A.

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