THE end has not come to a suit by a legal
practitioner against the Nigerian Bar Association
(NBA) over a controversy on the latter's bid to
commence validation and verification of record
exercise of all lawyers in Nigeria.
At the last check, The Guardian learnt that, the
lawyers' umbrella body has rejected a verdict by a
court of first instance restraining the association
from going on with the planned exercise and
consequently, it had filed an appeal challenging the
verdict of a Lagos High Court, Lagos Judicial
Division.
A Lagos High Court had on June 18, 2012
delivered its judgment in a suit filed by Mr.
Oluwole Kehinde against the NBA. But throughout
the suit, the court noted that NBA was not
represented, despite claim by the plaintiff that, he
had effected service, on the respondents.
In its appeal, NBA through a motion of notice is
seeking for leave of appeal. The lawyers' group
brought its application pursuant to section 241 of
the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria
1999 as amended; Section 24 (4) of the Court of
Appeal Act, Cap C36, LFN 2004 Order 7 Rules 1,7 &
10(2) of the Court of Appeal Civil Procedure Rules
2011 and under inherent jurisdiction of the court.
The association is praying for an order of court
to grant its application an extension of time to
appeal against the judgment of Justice Opeyemi
Oke of the Lagos High Court.
The appellant noted that its delay in filing appeal
against the judgment was occasioned by the
change in the appellant's officers and
administration staff following the association's
general elections, held in June 2012 and the
handover to a new set of officers and
administration in August 2012.
According to NBA in its 18-paragraph affidavit
sworn to by one Kelechi Onwuegbuchulem, the
association said: "That following the change in the
leadership of the appellant, the new executive
officers were not aware of the judgment until
recently when they enquired about the verification
exercise of lawyers and were advised that there
was a judgment of High Court of Lagos State
against the applicant stop verification exercise.
"It was only recently that we are able to obtain
Certified True Copies of the relevant process in this
case. The delay in filling appeal is neither a
deliberate act nor aimed at disrespecting the
honourable court. The appellant is desirous of
pursuing an appeal to set aside the default
judgment of the lower court and has proposed
notice of appeal containing five grounds."
The claimant had argued that NBA has no right
or duty to regulate the legal profession and for
which purpose it could embark on purported
verification or validation of records of legal
practitioners in Nigeria.
Claimant also said that it would create avoidable
confusion and would be prejudicial to lawyers who
are unable to meet up with the conditions and time
table set for the so called verification or validation
of records. He added that, NBA's duties and
responsibilities have been clearly specified in its
constitution, which is not a statutory instrument
and not a subsidiary legislation to the Legal
Practitioners Act. He referred the court to the case
of FAWEHINMI v NBA (No2) (1989) 2 NWLR (pt 105)
558 at 628.
He also submitted that there was no such law
that empowers the NBA as a body to verify or
validate the records of legal practitioners, and that
the current exercise by the NBA is illegal, null and
void and of no effective whatsoever.
The lower court held that: "the NBA is an
association of lawyers and its duties as outlined by
its constitution does neither include validation and
verification of the record of legal practitioners in
Nigeria nor entail the regulation of the legal
profession in Nigeria. I hold that since the NBA
does not train lawyers, does not call lawyer to bar,
does not have custody of the initial roll of legal
practitioners called to the Nigeria bar, it does not
have the right to call for the verification and
validation of legal practitioners in Nigeria. Allowing
the NBA to do this would in my opinion amount to
establishing a parallel roll of legal practitioners
with that at Supreme Court and also, this would be
prejudice to lawyers who are unable to meet up
with the condition and time- table set for the
verification or validation of records, which is not
free but has to be paid for."
guardiannews
No comments:
Post a Comment