site logo

ROTIMI WILLIAMS AKINTOKUN V. LEGAL PRACTITIONERS DISCIPLINAR (2014)

case summary

Supreme Court of Nigeria

Before Their Lordships:

  • Mahmud Mohammed JSC (Presiding)
  • Ibrahim Tanko Muhammad JSC (Lead Judgment)
  • John Afolabi Fabiyi JSC
  • Suleiman Galadima JSC
  • Mary Ukaego Peter-Odili JSC
  • Musa Dattijo Muhammad JSC
  • Kudrat Motonmori Olatokunbo Kekere-Ekun JSC

Parties:

Appellant:

  • Rotimi Williams Akintokun

Respondent:

  • Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee
Suit number: SC. 111/2006

Background

This case revolves around the appeal lodged by Rotimi Williams Akintokun against the direction from the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee (LPDC) that mandated the Chief Registrar of the Supreme Court to strike off his name from the roll of legal practitioners in Nigeria. The case originated from allegations of professional misconduct made by the Ogunesu family, asserting that Akintokun misled them in a land transaction.

Issue

The core issue presented was whether the Supreme Court had the jurisdiction to entertain the appeal against the LPDC's decision, especially in light of the court's previous ruling in Jide Aladejobi v. Nigerian Bar Association which held that appeals of this nature must first be directed to the Appeal Committee of the Body of Benchers.

The case invoked crucial legal provisions including:

  • The Legal Practitioners Act, 1990 (as amended), sections 11 and 12
  • The Legal Practitioners (Amendment) Decree No. 21 of 1994
  • The Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, sections 230, 233, and 315

Ratio Decidendi

The court ruled that it lacked jurisdiction to hear appeals directly from the LPDC due to the explicit framework established by the Legal Practitioners Act (Cap. L11) of the Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004, which mandates that such appeals must first go through the LPDC's Appeal Committee.

Court Findings

The court concluded that:

  1. The Supreme Court's jurisdiction was indeed ousted by the provisions in the current laws.
  2. The 1994 Decree No. 21 was not expressly repealed and thus remained moot in conjunction with later amendments but was rendered inoperative by the 2004 Act.

Conclusion

Consequently, Akintokun's appeal was struck out for lack of jurisdiction, reiterating the established legal procedure of navigating the appeal process through the designated Appeal Committee of the Body of Benchers.

Significance

This ruling is significant for establishing a framework concerning the jurisdictional powers of the Supreme Court within the context of legal discipline, reinforcing the necessity for adherence to statutory procedures in matters of legal practice and oversight.


Counsel:

  • Adelenre Adegborioye - for the Appellant
  • A. C. Aguma, Esq. - for the Respondent
  • Okey Wali (SAN) - as amicus curiae