The family of late Sen Gyang Dantong has dragged a medical doctor, Dalyopp Nyango, to court over the ownership of a N25 million hospital situated in Jos, Plateau State.
Nyango, who is standing trial before Justice David Mann of the State High III, is accused of “criminally cornering the hospital for himself after the demise of the late senator in July, 2012”.
Details of the matter indicated that Dantong and Nyango had, on May 4, 2009, entered into an agreement to purchase New Crescent Hospital Limited, along Zaria Road, Jos.
Further details indicated that under the agreement, Datong and Nyango had agreed to source for N25 million to purchase the facility and jointly run it.
Proceeds from running the outfit was to go into offsetting the loan with 25 per cent interest, on 50 – 50 basis between the duo, even though he (Dantong) provided the amount as loan.
A Jos-based legal firm, P.D. Dyek & Co, prepared the partnership agreement.
Trouble, however, started after the death of Datong, when his family members accused Nyango of claiming sole ownership of the hospital, especially after he allegedly changed its name to New Star Health Specialist Hospital, without their consent.
They became even more anxious after Nyango allegedly claimed that late Datong only gave him the N25 million as loan to purchase the said hospital, and explained that the two of them only agreed to run the hospital together.
It was at that stage that the matter was reported to the police, who after several failed attempts to settle the two families, charged the matter to court and accused Nyango of attempting to cheat Dantong’s family.
When the widow of Dantong, Hanatu, was docked, on Dec. 7, 2016, she denied Nyango’s claims and declared that she was in the know of how the doctor pestered her late husband for the joint business and purchase of the hospital.
The family members were also surprised to see that lawyers from the firm that prepared the partnership agreement for the duo were standing as the accused person’s counsel.
When the case came up for hearing on Wednesday, the prosecution counsel, Mrs. Muleng Alex, raised an objection on the competence of the firm to represent the accused.
Alex argued that the lead counsel, Mr Niri Daring, had stood in for Nyango as a witness in the drafted partnership agreement, and opined that it would amount to “double standard” for him to represent Nyango in court on the current controversy.
She argued that going by rule 17 (5) (c) of the rule of practice, no lawyer from P.D. Dyek & Co. could be qualified to stand in as counsel to the accused, not to talk of the very person that stood in as a witness during the partnership agreement.
“My Lord, it has come to my notice that Mr Niri Isaac Darong, the lead counsel to the accused in this case, is the very person that stood in for the accused as witness and appended his signature; so he is not qualified to appear in this matter.
“His position as counsel in this case will amount to interference with the matter.
“I hereby object to his representation and all other lawyers from that firm and asked the court to disqualify them from the entire case as well as disregard his earlier cross examination of PW 1 (Hanatu) in our last sitting, ’’ she prayed.
But Darong objected to her observations, arguing that being a witness to Nyango in the partnership should not disqualify him from representing him (accused) in court of law.
“My Lord, I only signed for Dr. Nyango and not Dr. Dantong, who had his own witness in one Mr Amos M. Jabba.
“I don’t see anything wrong with me or any of my colleagues’ representation in this matter as we have not contravened the rule of legal practice as my learned counsel claimed.
“I have never met late Datong nor had any knowledge of him for her to accuse me of standing for the living and forgetting the dead; I only signed as witness to the accused and not for both of them because he (Dantong), had his own witness too, ’’ he argued.
Darong prayed the court to disregard Alex’s submissions and allow him to continue the matter “especially since we have no interest in the case or any interior motive as painted by the prosecution counsel.’’
The Judge, in his ruling, said that it would be unethical for anybody from that Law Firm, having been involved in the drafting of the agreement between the two partners, to stand as counsel to the accused in the matter before him.
“In the eyes of the law, anyone from P.D. Dyek & Co. that acted for the accused during the drafting of the partnership agreement, knows something about the matter and it won’t be proper for the same counsel to now act for the accused as representative in matter in court, ’’ the judge said.
Mann said that with respect to the right of the accused to counsel of his choice, his choice should not have been someone connected to the issue in one way or the other.
“I therefore hold that it is not ethical for Mr Darong, or anyone within the firm, to stand for, or be involved in this matter, ’’ the Judge declared.
He then adjourned the case to March 8, 2017 for continuation of hearing.
Darong expressed dissatisfaction with the court’s ruling and promised to challenge it at the appellate court.’’
“The rule of practice, which the prosecution counsel quoted, is applicable only when we have an interest in the case; as it is, none of us has any interest in it.
“We are going to appeal and see whether the rule of professional conduct can take away the right of an accused as provided by section 36 (6)(C) of the 1999 Constitution as amended, ’’ Darong said.
