BARRISTER GBENGA AKINGBEHIN v. CHIEF MRS. THOMPSON
CITATION: (2007) LPELR-CA/L/59/2004
   
new OTHER CITATIONS:
1 Akingbehin v. Thompson (2008) 6 NWLR (Pt.1083)
print
 
   
Nigerian Coat of Arms
In The Court of Appeal
(Lagos Judicial Division)
On Thursday, the 12th day of July, 2007
Suit No: CA/L/59/2004
 
 Between
BARRISTER GBENGA AKINGBEHIN Appelants
 
 And
CHIEF MRS. THOMPSON Respondents
 
SUMMARY OF JUDGMENT 

The appellant herein (as plaintiff) in suit No. ID/1145/2001 by a writ of summons dated 7/5/01 sued the respondent (as defendant) at the High Court of Lagos State (sitting at Ikeja) claiming the following reliefs:

(i) the sum of N450,000.00 (Four Hundred and Fifty Thousand Naira Only) being professional fees on legal documentation in respect of the purchase of the property at No. 17 Eric Moore Street Wema Board Estate, Ikeja Lagos State.

(ii) Interest on the sum aforesaid at the rate of 71/2% from the date of the writ of summons until judgment is delivered and at the rate of 2% from judgment till the judgment sum shall be liquidated.

(ii) The sum of N500,000.00 (Five Hundred Thousand Naira Only) being general damages on the series of inconveniences, expenses and losses incurred by the plaintiff and occasioned by the defendant in pursuit of this claim. At the close of pleadings, the matter went on trial. The plaintiff/appellant testified for himself and called no other witness while the defendants/respondent chose not to call any witness but relied on the evidence adduced and the documents tendered by the appellant.

At the end of trial, the learned trial Judge B. O. Shitta Bey J, delivered the courts judgment whereby all the appellants' claims against the respondent were dismissed. Being dissatisfied with the said judgment, the appellant appealed against it to this court in his notice of appeal containing 4 (four) grounds of appeal.

Afetr due consideration, this court held that there was no contravention by the said appellant of the provision of section 16(2)(a) and (b) of the Legal Practitioners Act in the preparation and service of his bill of charges for his professional services rendered to the respondent on the latter's instruction. The lower court was therefore wrong in holding that it had no competence or jurisdiction to entertain the appellant's suit and in consequently dismissing the said suit. This court resolved by stating that the issues framed in the appellant's brief must be answered in the positive and resolved in favour of the appellant and against the respondent.

   
Appearances
 
For the Appelants
 
For the Respondents