Babcock University Research Portal

“CASE NOTE: Conflicting Decisions of the Supreme Court and Rotimi Williams Akintokun v Legal Practitioners’ Disciplinary Committee (LPDC) ”

Authors: OLUGASA Olubukola

Publication Type: Journal article

Journal: Babcock University Socio-legal Journal

ISSN Number:

Downloads

Views

Abstract

Issue: The issue of co-existence of two conflicting enactments on appeal process from the Direction of Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee (hereinafter referred to as LPDC) and or two conflicting decisions by same court on same subject matter.

Facts: Rotimi Williams Akintokun is a legal practitioner in Lagos. He was a solicitor to the Ogunesu family of Ikorodu on their land matter in Lagos State. The Ogunesu’s family dissatisfied with Mr. Akintokun’s services filed a petition against him on the Nigeria Bar Association (NBA). The petitioner had alleged that Mr. Akintokun committed acts of professional misconduct, while acting as their solicitor. He was accused of knowingly misleading the family on an alleged acquisition of their land by Lagos State Government. He was alleged to have neglected/failed to carry out the family’s instructions to move promptly, joins some adversaries on their land apart from causing the land to be under surveyed with intent to cheat them resold part of the land without the family’s knowledge or instruction. The Legal Pratitioners’ Disciplinary Committee (LPDC) of the Body of Benchers found him guilty as charged and directed the Chief court Registrar of the SC to strike off his name from the roll. Mr. Akintokun then appealed to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court per Onnogghen JSC raised the issue of jurisdiction of the court to hear the appeal as constituted suo motu. The Court requested the parties and some amicus currie to come and address the court on same in view of the decision of the court in Aladejobi v. MBDbecause counsel argued and asked the court to depart from the Aladejobi’s decision a full court of 7 justice sat to hear this issue on the 13th day of Jan, 2014: the issue being whether the SC has the jurisdiction to hear an instant appeal against the direction of the LPDC.

Access to Documents

External Link
Download
Digital Object Identifier

Keywords

OLUGASA,O. . (2016). “CASE NOTE: Conflicting Decisions of the Supreme Court and Rotimi Williams Akintokun v Legal Practitioners’ Disciplinary Committee (LPDC) ”, 1 (), 246-246.

OLUGASA,O. . "“CASE NOTE: Conflicting Decisions of the Supreme Court and Rotimi Williams Akintokun v Legal Practitioners’ Disciplinary Committee (LPDC) ”" 1, no (), (2016): 246-246.

OLUGASA,O. and . (2016). “CASE NOTE: Conflicting Decisions of the Supreme Court and Rotimi Williams Akintokun v Legal Practitioners’ Disciplinary Committee (LPDC) ”, 1 (), pp246-246.

OLUGASAO, . “CASE NOTE: Conflicting Decisions of the Supreme Court and Rotimi Williams Akintokun v Legal Practitioners’ Disciplinary Committee (LPDC) ”. 2016, 1 ():246-246.

OLUGASA,Olubukola , . "“CASE NOTE: Conflicting Decisions of the Supreme Court and Rotimi Williams Akintokun v Legal Practitioners’ Disciplinary Committee (LPDC) ”", 1 . (2016) : 246-246.

O.Olubukola , "“CASE NOTE: Conflicting Decisions of the Supreme Court and Rotimi Williams Akintokun v Legal Practitioners’ Disciplinary Committee (LPDC) ”" vol.1, no., pp. 246-246, 2016.

Access to Documents

Keywords

About Us

Admissions

Contact Us

Policies

ALUMNI

STUDENT POPULATION