Background
This appeal arises from a dispute over professional fees between Oluseyi Sowemimo, SAN (practicing as Seyi Sowemimo & Co) and Chief Anse Agu Ezetah (practicing as Law Agu Ezetah & Co) (the appellants) and the Asset Management Corporation of Nigeria (AMCON) (the respondent). The appellants were retained by Fidelity Bank Plc to recover a judgment debt of US $12,926,931 (approximately N1.98 billion), subsequently upheld on appeal. Unbeknown to them, AMCON purchased the debt and negotiated a compromise without notifying their solicitors. The appellants claimed 5% of the then judgment debt (N5.35 billion) but received only N61,961,380, prompting them to seek the balance of N191 million as professional fees.
Facts & Procedural History
In December 2010, the appellants were appointed joint solicitors by Fidelity Bank Plc. After securing judgment in December 2012 and upholding it on appeal, AMCON acquired the debt and negotiated with the judgment debtors in secrecy, paying the appellants only on the reduced settlement amount. The appellants sued AMCON at the Federal High Court, claiming 5% of N5.35 billion, and were awarded N191 million. AMCON appealed to the Court of Appeal, which set aside the trial judgment, finding the compromise valid under section 6 of the AMCON Act and dismissing allegations of collusion and impropriety. The appellants then appealed to the Supreme Court, raising six grounds challenging the Court of Appeal’s reliance on ipse dixit evidence, pleading construction, characterization of collusion, fee versus commission distinction, statutory interpretation of section 6, and alleged contradictions in the appellate judgment.
Issues
- Whether the appeal was competent in view of grounds of mixed law and fact without leave.
- Whether the Supreme Court may act outside the record of appeal.
- Whether grounds complaining of lack of evidence or admissible evidence constitute questions of law.
- Whether grounds must flow from the ratio decidendi of the judgment below.
- Distinction between grounds of law, fact, and mixed law and fact.
Ratio Decidendi
The Supreme Court held that under section 233(2)(a) of the 1999 Constitution, appeals to the Supreme Court as of right lie only on questions of law alone. Grounds raising issues of fact or mixed law and fact require leave. The appellants’ grounds were largely mixed and required leave which was not sought or granted. Consequently, the Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the appeal and must strike out the incompetent grounds and the appeal itself.
Court Findings
- The Court meticulously examined each ground and found grounds 1–5 invoked evidential disputes or mixed questions, not pure legal issues.
- Ground 6 did not arise from the ratio of the Court of Appeal’s judgment and was also incompetent.
- The Supreme Court is bound by the record and cannot consider matters outside it.
- A ground is not a ground of law merely because so labeled; its substance determines its nature.
- Preliminary objection on competence was upheld; all grounds were struck out.
Conclusion
The appeal was dismissed and struck out for want of jurisdiction due to the absence of leave to appeal on mixed law and fact grounds. No competent grounds remained for determination.
Significance
This decision underscores the Supreme Court’s duty to strictly enforce constitutional and procedural requirements for appeals. It clarifies the distinction between pure questions of law and mixed law and fact, emphasizing that appellants must obtain leave before advancing mixed grounds. The ruling reinforces appellate discipline by confining review to the record and compelling precise grounding of appeals in ratios of lower court judgments.