Power Of The Supreme Court Of Nigeria To Restrain Professor Bankole Sodipo From Representing Comandclem Nigeria Limited In Suit SC.69/2011

Power Of The Supreme Court Of Nigeria
To Restrain Professor Bankole Sodipo From Representing Comandclem Nigeria Limited
In Suit SC.69/2011

(1.0) Whether the Supreme Court of Nigeria hasInherent Power to restrain a counsel from representing theAppellants/Cross Respondents in a suit where such a counsel had earlier been briefed by the Opponent Party sought to join the Appellants/Cross Respondents?

(2.0) Fundamental FactsOf The Case

(2.1) Having been duly contacted and briefed byMr. Oyewo Muideen Adekunle (An Antagonist of King Professor CJA Uwemedimo and Comandclem Nigeria Limited), Professor Bankole Sodipo filed an application to join him as an Appellant/Cross Respondent in suit SC.69/2011 on the 10th of April, 2014 in the Supreme Court of Nigeria.

(2.2) Surprisingly, the same Professor Bankole Sodipo claimed he was duly contacted and briefed by Comandclem Nigeria Limited which necessitated him to file several applications on behalf ofComandclem Nigeria Limited (Applicants/Cross Respondents) in the Supreme Court of Nigeria on the 12th day of May, 2015.

(2.3) The question is

“Whether the Supreme Court of Nigeria hasInherent Power to restrainProfessor Bankole Sodipofrom representingComandclem NigeriaLimited in a suit whereProfessor Bankole Sodipohad earlier been briefed byMr. Oyewo Muideen Adekunle (An Antagonist of King Professor CJA Uwemedimo and Comandclem Nigeria Limited)?”

(3.0) Being the highest court in the land, the Honourable Justices of The Supreme Court of Nigeria have Inherent Powers to restrainProfessor Bankole Sodipofrom representing Comandclem Nigeria Limited in the Supreme Court of Nigeria in suit SC.69/2011 becauseProfessor Bankole Sodipohad earlier been briefed by an opponent of Comandclem Nigeria Limited.

(4) The above position of law is supported by the pronouncement of  Honourable Justice Uwais (JSC) in the case ofAnatogu V. Iweka II (1995) 8 NWLR (Pt.415) 547where he said and I quote him verbatim.

"Generally, the courts are not to prevent Litigants from employing the services of counsel of their own choice.

However, a person must not be allowed to employ the services of a counsel, nor should a counsel accept a brief where it is clear that the services to be rendered flow out of or are closely connected with the previous services he had rendered to the opposing side.

Clearly the jurisdiction to restrain counsel from acting for the antagonist of his client stems from the principle that a man ought to be restrained from doing any act contrary to the duty that he owes to another, and that the jurisdiction will be exercised at the instance of the former client".

Per :Uwais J.S.C. 
Anatogu V. Iweka II (1995) 8 NWLR (Pt.415) 547, at page 582 – 583.

-usefulman
07032522248