The Law on Recovery of the Professional Fees by a Legal Practitioner

CASE TITLE: HOMER PROPERTIES LTD & ANOR v. IKOGWE (2023) LPELR-60571(CA)

JUDGMENT DATE: 6TH JULY, 2023

PRACTICE AREA: LEGAL PRACTITIONER

LEAD JUDGMENT: UGOCHUKWU ANTHONY OGAKWU, J.C.A.

SUMMARY OF JUDGMENT:

INTRODUCTION:

This appeal borders on recovery of the professional fees of a legal practitioner.

FACTS:

This appeal is against the decision of the High Court of FCT, Abuja.

The Respondent, a Legal Practitioner, sued the Appellants to recover his professional fees for services he rendered to them in respect of tenancy contractual obligations for the Appellants’ properties situate at Plot No. 14 Lord Lugard Street (Formerly Plot 187 Deeper Life Street) Asokoro, Abuja, Plot 90B Nelson Mandela Street, Asokoro, Abuja and Plot 90A Nelson Mandela Street, Asokoro, Abuja, respectively.

The High Court found and held that the Respondent rendered the services on which he predicated his demand for payment of his earned professional fees. There is no appeal against this finding that the Respondent rendered the services. As a matter of fact, the evidence before the Court discloses that on account of these services, the rent for Plot No. 14 Lord Lugard Street was increased from US$176,400.00 per annum to US$236,800.00 per annum and that a two-year rent totalling US$473,600.00 was paid to the Appellants.

The Respondent duly prepared the tenancy agreement for the renewed tenancy relationship. Equally, the evidence on record further shows that the Respondent’s services led to the increase of the rent at Plots 90A and 90B Nelson Mandela Street respectively, from N3 million per annum to N5 million per annum. In respect of Plot 90B, rent for two years was paid to the Appellants, while in respect of Plot 90A, rent for one year was paid to the Appellants. Again, for these renewed tenancy relationships, the Respondent prepared fresh tenancy agreements, which were admitted in evidence as Exhibits K and P.

The matter went to trial, with the parties adducing testimonials and documentary evidence. In its judgment delivered on 21st September 2017, the High Court conclusively entered judgment in favour of the Respondent.

Dissatisfied with the decision, the appellants appealed to the Court of Appeal.

ISSUES:

The Court of Appeal determined the appeal by adopting the issues formulated by the appellants which are:

1. Did the Respondent serve a valid bill of charges on the Appellants and thereby trigger the jurisdiction of the trial Court to hear the matter?

2. Whether the Respondent was entitled to any legal fees outside the purview of Exhibit 6, the retainership agreement between him and DW2?

3. Whether the trial Court was right in dismissing the counterclaim of the Appellants on the state of the pleadings and evidence before the Court?

DECISION/HELD:

In conclusion, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

RATIOS:

• CONTRACT – PRIVITY OF CONTRACT – Whether a contract confers rights or obligations only on parties to it
• LEGAL PRACTITIONER – PAYMENT OF LEGAL FEES – Instance when it would be right for a legal practitioner to issue his bill of charges under Scale II of the Remuneration Order
• EVIDENCE – PRESUMPTION OF CORRECTNESS – Presumption of correctness in the findings of Courts; on whom lies the burden to rebut the same
• EVIDENCE – ORAL/DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE – Whether oral evidence can be allowed to discredit or contradict a documentary evidence
• PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – PRELIMINARY OBJECTION – Effect of not moving a preliminary objection