The Nigerian Bar Association cleared a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN) Mr Kunle Ogunba of the misconduct allegations made against him by Honeywell Group before the Legal Practitioners Privileges Committee (LPPC) withdrew his rank, it was learnt.
The LPPC, in a statement last Thursday signed by its Secretary and Registrar of the Supreme Court, Hadizatu Mustapha, announced the withdrawal of Ogunba’s rank and privileges based on a petition by Honeywell Group.
LPPC said: “The misconduct alleged consists of the institution of multiplicity of proceedings before different judges of the Federal High Court on the same subject with the deliberate aim of abusing the process of court and derailing the course of justice.
“After a thorough investigation of the petition by the sub-committee set up by the LPPC (at which the respondent was given a fair hearing), it was decided that the petition is meritorious.
“Consequently, the LPPC at its 129th plenary meeting have withdrawn the rank of Senior Advocate of Nigeria from Kunle Ogunba Esq and other privileges attached to the rank forthwith.”
The LPPC also announced that a lawyer, Oluwatoyin Bashorun, has been barred from applying for the rank for three years for allegedly staying in a rented apartment “for nine years without paying rent”.
But, the NBA, in its August 5, 2016 response to Honeywell Group’s petition against Ogunba, signed by its then General Secretary Mazi Afam Osigwe, said it would not refer him to its Disciplinary Committee.
“We regret to inform you that a careful reading of the petition failed to disclose any alleged infraction of the Rules of Professional Conduct 2007 in respect of which Mr. Kunle Ogunba (SAN) could be called upon to offer an explanation
“It is a principle of law that companies are separate legal entities capable of suing and being sued.
“Placing this principle side by side your allegation of abuse of court process, we are satisfied the cases referred to as well as the court processes attached by your good-selves failed to show the existence of a case involving same parties in respect of same facts and seeking same reliefs,” NBA said.
The associations listed the suits as Anchorage Leisures Ltd & 2 Ors vs Ecobank Nig Ltd (FHC/L/CS/1219/2015); Ecobank Plc vs Honeywell Flour Mills Plc (FHC/L/CP/1569/2015), Mr. Oba Otudeko vs Ecobank Nig Ltd (FHC/L/BK/19/2015), Ecobank Nig Ltd vs Siloam Global Services Ltd (FHC/L/CP/1572/2015), Econank Nig Ltd vs Anchorage Leisures Ltd (FHC/L/CP/ 1570/2015), Ecobank Nig Ltd vs Honeywell Group Ltd (FHC/L/CP/1571/2015) and Ecobank Nig Ltd vs Honeywell Flour Mills Plc (FHC/L/CP/ 1689/2015).
“It is difficult to concede to the allegation that the suits amount to abuse of court process upon which a disciplinary proceeding should commence,” NBA said.
According to the association, the suits by Otudeko and Anchorage Leisures seek a declaration that they are no longer indebted to Ecobank and that the bank should be restrained from publishing their names as bad debtors.
NBA said it found that Ecobank’s actions against Honeywell Flour Mills and Honeywell Group were petitions filed consecutively for winding-up proceedings against them, but were later discontinued to correct anomalies in them.
It added that the Ecobank’s suits against Siloam Global Services and Anchorage Leisures involve petitions for winding-up “against the two different companies”.
NBA said: “The fact the companies may have common ownership or directors does not make them the same entity or preclude the presentation of petitions against them if counsel believes grounds exist for doing so.
“A careful examination of the court processes filed by parties at the various suits indicates differences in either parties or reliefs sought, which defeats your (Honeywell’s) allegation of abuse of court process.”
NBA said a Court of Appeal judgment which Honeywell attached to the petition “did not make any pronouncement against the Respondent (Ogunba) on the issue of abuse of court process”.
According to the association, the appellate court did not indict Ogunba, therefore, the judgment would “not be used as a basis for coming to the conclusion that grounds exist for commencing disciplinary hearing against the respondent”.
“The respondent’s actions are in our respectful view in line with the duty of a counsel to do everything which in the exercise of his discretion he thinks best for the general interest of his client, which cannot be fettered by subjecting him to disciplinary proceedings.
“The respondent owed his client a duty to take all lawful steps to directly and or indirectly represent his client and or get the best in the circumstance for his client in reliance on the best of his professional ability.
“We are of the informed view that the actions and or decisions taken by the respondent were not only authorised by his instruction but were made in the course of an attempt at arriving at an amicable settlement in the matter.
“The respondent’s actions in the course of representing his client are instilled by his duty to get the best for his client and do not impugn the integrity of the legal profession.
“We are, therefore, of the considered belief that the allegations contained in the petition under reference do not contain facts indicating any infraction of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
“In the light of the foregoing, we will be unable to further inquire into the matter by forwarding the petition to the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee. The petition is hereby dismissed as it lacks merit,” NBA said.
