In the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Holden at Abuja
On Friday, the 4th day of July, 2025
Before Their Lordships
Mohammed Lawal Garba
Adamu Jauro
Moore Aseimo Abraham Adumein
Obande Festus Ogbuinya
Abubakar Sadiq Umar
Justices, Supreme Court
SC/CV/278/2021
Between
NNAMDI OSUJI APPELLANT
And
1. LEGAL PRACTITIONERS DISCIPLINARY
COMMITTEE
2. INCORPORATED TRUSTEES OF THE
NIGERIAN BAR ASSOCIATION RESPONDENTS
(Lead Judgement delivered by Honourable Mohammed Lawal Garba, JSC)
Facts
This appeal arose from a Direction of the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee sitting in Abuja, coram: Emmanuel C. Ukala, SAN; Ebenezer Obeya, Esq.; Ahmed Mustapha Goniri, Esq.; Sulaiman Usman, SAN; and Boma Ayomide Alabi, SAN.
The facts giving rise to the appeal are that a petition was filed against the Appellant, a legal practitioner called to the Nigerian Bar in 1992, by one Mr Arisa Chiekweiro (“the Complainant”). The basis of the petition was that the Complainant engaged the services of the Appellant to purchase a property in Festac Town, Lagos State, for the sum of N8 million. However, the Appellant failed to purchase the said property, and was only able to refund the sum of N1 million to the Complainant. Consequent upon which the Complainant submitted a petition to the 2nd Respondent, who investigated the matter and concluded that a prima facie case of professional misconduct had been established against the Appellant. Accordingly, the matter was referred to the 1st Respondent.
At the hearing, the Appellant testified on his own behalf, while the 2nd Respondent called two witnesses, including the Complainant. Thereafter, the 1st Respondent found the Appellant guilty of infamous conduct in the course of performing his duties as a legal practitioner, and ordered that his name be struck off the Roll of Legal Practitioners. The 1st Respondent also directed him, to repay the outstanding sum of N7 million to the Complainant within six months.
Dissatisfied with the direction of the 1st Respondent, the Appellant appealed to the Supreme Court on ten grounds. In his amended brief of argument, the Appellant formulated four issues for determination from the grounds of appeal, bordering on whether the composition of the Committee and proceedings breached the Appellant’s right to fair hearing; whether the Committee had jurisdiction to entertain the complaint; whether its decision was supported by the evidence led; and whether the Committee has the authority to strike the name of the Appellant off the Roll of Legal Practitioners from the date of its direction.
In response, the 1st Respondent formulated three issues, bordering on denial of fair hearing; jurisdiction of the Committee; and whether the decision of the Committee was supported by the evidence before it. Similarly, the 2nd Respondent formulated five related issues for the determination of the court.
Issues for Determination
Before considering the merits of the appeal vis-à-vis the issues formulated by the parties, the Supreme Court raised the issue of its jurisdiction suo motu, thus:
“Whether the Supreme Court is conferred with jurisdiction to entertain appeals from the direction of the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee?”
Court’s Judgement and Rationale
The Supreme Court noted the general principle of law that where a court raises an issue suo motu, the parties must be afforded an opportunity to address the court before a decision is reached on the issue. This principle was reiterated in I.G.P v Achi (2024) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1943) 273; Angadi v PDP (2018) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1641) 1; Omoniyi v Alabi (2015) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1456) 572. The foregoing notwithstanding, the Supreme Court held that an exception to the general rule, is where the issue raised suo motu touches on the jurisdiction of the court. This is because jurisdiction is fundamental, and directly affects the court’s authority to entertain and determine a matter. Consequently, even where a Respondent fails to challenge the competence of an appeal, the court may do so on its own motion. The court referred to the following decisions: Francis v FRN (2021) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1769) 398; Dickson Ogunseinde Virya Farms Ltd. v Societe General Bank Ltd. (2018) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1624) 230; Garba v Mohammed (2016) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1537) 114, among others.
In further affirming the inherent power of a court to raise the issue of jurisdiction suo motu and determine same without first hearing the parties thereon, the Supreme Court quoted the dictum of Rhodes-Vivour, JSC (as he then was) in OMOKUWAJO v F.R.N., where His Lordship stated as follows:
“The need to give the parties a hearing when a Judge raises an issue on his own motion or suo motu, would not be necessary if:-
(a) the issue relates to the court’s own jurisdiction,
(b) both parties are/were not aware or ignored a statute which may have bearing on the case. That is to say, where by virtue of statutory provision, the Judge is expected to take judicial notice. See Section 73 of the Evidence Act.
(c) when on the face of the record, serious questions of the fairness of the proceedings is evident”.
Having established the foregoing, the court defined jurisdiction as a threshold issue, the nerve centre, and the foundation of adjudication, representing the authority and power of a court to determine any dispute brought before it. Consequently, where a court lacks jurisdiction to entertain a matter, any proceedings or decision reached, regardless of how well conducted, amount to a nullity – CBN v Okojie (2015) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1479) 231; Madukolu v Nkemdilim (1962) 2 SCNLR 341; Umanah v Attah (2006) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1009) 503 SC.
The Supreme Court noted that the jurisdiction of courts is entirely statutory, since courts are creatures of statute and derive their adjudicatory powers solely from the Constitution or enabling legislation, relying on SULAIMAN v F.R.N (2020) 18 NWLR (PT. 1755) 180. Accordingly, where no statute confers jurisdiction on a court, the court cannot assume jurisdiction on its own, nor can parties confer jurisdiction on the court by consent, waiver, or acquiescence.
Furthermore, the Court restated the principle established in MADUKOLU vs. NKEMDILIM on the essential conditions for the exercise of jurisdiction as follows:
(a) the court must be properly constituted as regard number and qualification of members of the Bench, and no member is disqualified for one reason or another;
(b) the subject-matter of the case is within the jurisdiction of the court, and there is no feature in the case that prevents the court from exercising jurisdiction; and
(c) the case comes before the court initiated by due process of the law, and upon fulfilment of any condition precedent to the exercise of the jurisdiction.
Flowing from these principles, the Supreme Court would only be competent to entertain an appeal where the appeal has been initiated in strict compliance with the applicable constitutional and statutory provisions. Therefore, where a notice of appeal fails to comply with the enabling statute or prescribed conditions precedent, the appeal becomes incompetent and the court lacks jurisdiction to entertain it.
The Supreme Court held that under the Legal Practitioners Act, 2004, jurisdiction over disciplinary proceedings against legal practitioners is exercised in a hierarchical manner. First, by the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee (LPDC), the 1st Respondent, by virtue of Section 10(1) of the Act, which establishes the Committee and empowers it to consider allegations of professional misconduct against legal practitioners. Second, Sections 11(7) and 12(1)–(5) further create a statutory appellate structure by vesting jurisdiction to hear appeals from the 1st Respondent in the Appeal Committee of the Body of Benchers, and thereafter conferring jurisdiction on the Supreme Court to hear appeals only from decisions of the Appeal Committee.
Accordingly, by a combined reading of Sections 11(7) and 12(5) of the Legal Practitioners Act, a legal practitioner dissatisfied with the direction of the LPDC must first appeal to the Appeal Committee of the Body of Benchers before approaching the Supreme Court. A direct appeal from the LPDC to the Supreme Court is incompetent, and incapable of invoking the appellate jurisdiction of the court.
Relying on principles established in Mato v Hember (2018) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1612) 258 and MOBIL Producing (Nig.) Unltd v Johnson (2018) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1639) 329, the Supreme Court held that where a statute prescribes a specific procedure for doing an act, that procedure must be strictly complied with, and that failure to comply with the appellate procedure prescribed under the Legal Practitioners Act deprives the Supreme Court of jurisdiction to entertain the appeal – Aladejobi v NBA (2013) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1376) 66; Akintokun v LPDC (2014) 13 NWLR (PT. 1423).
Their Lordships held further that a Notice of Appeal is the foundation and substratum of every appeal, and where the Notice of Appeal is incompetent, the appellate court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the appeal, as established in Uwazurike v A.G. Federation (2007) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1035) 1; L.G.C Ltd. v Stanbic IBTC Bank PLC. (No. 2) (2022) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1851) 551. Thus, where a Notice of Appeal is incompetent/defective, the court is left with the only option to strike out the appeal.
In the instant case, the Notice of Appeal was filed directly against the direction of the LPDC, without first appealing to the Appeal Committee of the Body of Benchers as mandatorily required by Section 11(7) of the Legal Practitioners Act. Since the condition precedent to invoking the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court was not fulfilled, the appeal was incompetent, thereby depriving the court of jurisdiction to hear and determine the appeal on the merits.
Appeal Struck Out.
Representation
R.O. Isenalumhe with Olugbenga Adeyemi and Kingsley Idahosa for the Appellant.
Dike Udenna with Ibere C. Nzeagwu for the 1st Respondent.
Emeka Onyeka with Tochukwu Aneke, Ebenezer Nkanu and Iheanyichukwu Adiele for the 2nd Respondent.
Reported by Optimum Publishers Limited, Publishers of the Nigerian Monthly Law Reports (NMLR)(An affiliate of Babalakin & Co.)