An Abuja based lawyer, Onyechi Egwuonwu Esq, has approached the Supreme Court of Nigeria seeking an order striking out the name of a prominent Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Chief Joe Kyari Gadzama, from the Roll of Legal Practitioners in Nigeria for violation of the extant provisions of Rules of Professional Conduct for Legal Practitioners, 2007 and infamous conduct in professional respect.
In an Originating Motion dated and filed on 24th March, 2020 in Appeal No: SC/632/2018: UNION BANK OF NIGERIA PLC V. PETRO UNION OIL & GAS COY LTD & 3 OTHERS sighted by Legaldeskng and brought pursuant to Order 3 Rule 2(1), Order 2 RULE 15(1) & (2) of the Supreme Court Rules, 1999 (as amended) and sections 12 & 13(1) of the Legal Practitioners Act Cap. L11, LFN, 2004 and under the inherent jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of Nigeria as a court of Justice; the Applicant prays the Court for the following Orders:

1. AN ORDER OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT striking out the name of the Respondent, Mr. Joe Kyari Gadzama, SAN, from the Roll of Legal Practitioners in Nigeria for being guilty of infamous conduct in professional respect pursuant to Section 13(1) of the Legal Practitioners Act, CAP L11, LFN, 2004.

2. A DECLARATION that all and or any other Letter of Instruction/Engagement issued to Mr. Joe Kyari Gadzama, SAN and or to his law firm of J – K Gadzama, LLP by Mr. Kingsley Okpalaeze and or any person or officer acting as agent or servant of the 1st Respondent, outside the Letter of Instruction/Engagement dated 18/09/2017and issued to the Respondent by Applicant as the Instructing Solicitor) is null and void.

3. A DECLARATION that the Respondent is guilty of infamous conduct in professional respect by instigating and inducing the purported debriefing of Applicant from 1st Respondent’s Suits and the said Respondent inheriting the said Suits in which Applicant engaged him as Instructing Solicitor.

4. A DECLARATION that the 1st Respondent is without the vires to debrief Applicant and or engage any other counsel in this matter until all and every legal/professional fees of the said Applicant is paid and settled in full.

5.AN ORDER OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT disqualifying the Respondent, Mr. Joe KyariGadzama, SAN, and any lawyer(s) from his law firm of J – K. Gadzama, LLP forthwith from further appearance for the 1st Respondent in this Appeal No. SC/632/2019: UNION BANK OF NIGERIA PLC V. PETRO UNION OIL & GAS COY LTD & 3 OTHERS and all other proceedings connected therefore in any other Court of law pursuant to Section 12 of the Legal Practitioners Act, CAP L11, LFN, 2004.”

The facts as contained in the Applicant’s 43 paragraphs Affidavit and 21 exhibits attached in support of the Originating Motion and a Further and Better Affidavit of 89 paragraphs and 7 exhibits attached and deposed to on 03/08/2020 and made available to TheNigeriaLawyer (TNL) is that Onyechi Egwuonwu Esq. and his other learned colleagues entered into a contingency fee agreement with Petro Union Oil & Gas Coy Ltd and prosecuted Suit No. FHC/ABJ/M/104/2012 and successfully obtained mandamus orders compelling the Defendants to return to the company the £2,556,000,000.00 imported foreign capital in the wrongful custody of both the CBN and UBN. The judgment was delivered on 11/03/2014 and both UBN and CBN filed Appeal Nos CA/A/258/2014: UNION BANK OF NIGERIA PLC V. PETRO UNION OIL & GAS COY LTD & 3 OTHERS and CA/A/258A/2014: CENTRAL BANK OF NIGERIA V. PETRO UNION OIL & GAS COY LTD & 3 OTHERS. Applicant settled and filed 1ST RESPONDENT’S BRIEF OF ARGUMENT on both appeals and then approached his cousin Chief Johnny Egwuonwu, SAN, to be the lead counsel in the appeals. It was disclosed that Chief Johnnie Egwuonwu SAN, advised that since both Applicant and the learned silk bear the same surname, he thus nominated Mr. J. K Gadzama, SAN to be brought in as lead counsel, and not because of any special litigation skill and or legal expertise of said Mr. Gadzama, SAN.” “Then our woes started.”

Applicant further averted that Appeal No. CA/A/258/2014: UNION BANK OF NIGERIA PLC V. PETRO UNION OIL & GAS COY LTD & 3 OTHERS was dismissed by the Court of Appeal and judgment of the trial Federal High Court affirmed on 05/06/2018 based on the 1ST RESPONDENT’S BRIEF OF ARGUMENT settled on 28/04/2017 and filed on 02/05/2017 by Applicant without any input whatsoever from Mr. Gadzama or his law firm.

However, Onyechi Egwuonwu averred that he engaged Mr. Gadzama as the Lead Counsel in the appeals in his capacity as Instructing Solicitor to 1st Respondent and under the terms and conditions as clearly stated in his Letter of Engagement dated 18/09/2017 and that the content of the said Engagement letter is very clear and specific and never included the engagement of Mr. Gadzama, SAN and or his law firm to demand and or collect the money judgment sum of £396,778,681.46 and the 15% accrued interest from either the UBN PLC and or the CBN.

“That against the terms of his engagement and in exhibition of crass infamous conduct in a professional respect unethical conduct and without my knowledge first sought and obtained, the Respondent wrote to the Governor of Central Bank of Nigeria and the Managing Director of Union Bank of Nigeria Plc demanding the payment of the Judgement sum into his
Chambers account.

“I know as a fact that in compliance with the provision of the Irrevocable Power of Attorney donated to us by the company, one Mr. Kingsley Okpalaeze who became a director of the company in 2015, much after we have secured the money judgment sum of £2,556, 000,000.00 in favor of Petro Union Oil & Gas Coy Ltd, wrote the Respondent, rectifying his engagement by me as the Instructing Solicitor.

On the grounds upon which the application is brought, Applicant averred that the issue of legal representation takes precedent and priority of hearing, even over issue of jurisdiction.

“It is the law that having secured a money judgment of 2,556, 000,000.00 under contingency brief, Applicant and his team of lawyers have acquired an attorney’s lien in the judgment sum from the date of the money Judgement in favour of the company and another counsel does not take over the Brief until and unless the legal fees of Applicant counsel and his other colleagues is settled and paid in full. The case of ISMAIL &ANOTHER V.. RICHARD BUTLER(1996)2 ALL ER 506 was cited and relied upon.

“It is a brazen infraction of the RPCLP, 2007 and infamous conduct in professional respect for the Respondent (Mr. J.K Gadzama, SAN) to instigate, sponsor and induce the debriefing of the Applicant in the case in which the Applicant engaged the said Mr. Joe Kyari Gadzama, vide letters dated 20/01/2020 and 18/3/2020 respectively.

Furthermore, it was stated that Mr. Gadzama, SAN and his Law Firm J.K Gadzama LLP without the consent and knowledge of the Applicant prepared MOTION EX – PARTE dated 13/07/2018 against the Central Bank of Nigeria for order of garnishee of the money judgment sum £396,778,681.46 and the accrued interest totaling £1,825,181,934.72 (One Billion, Eight Hundred and Twenty – Five Million, One Hundred and Eighty – One Thousand, Nine Hundred and Thirty – Four Pounds, Sterling, Seventy – Two Shillings) in Suit No. FHC/ABJ/M/104/2012 into his Chambers bank account and filed same on 19/07/2018 at the Federal High Court No. 6, Abuja Division before the Honourable Justice Okon Abang.” The certified true copy of the Motion Ex – parte under reference is attached as exhibit.

Besides, Onyechi Egwuonwu said Mr. J.K Gadzama, SAN and his law firm of J.K Gadzama, LLP were not counsel to the Plaintiff/Judgment Creditor (Petro Union Oil & Gas Coy Ltd) at the trial Court and neither did any of them appeared and or in way whatsoever participate in the successful prosecution of the case that culminated in the money judgment.

Therefore, Applicant urged the Supreme Court to exercise its disciplinary jurisdiction under Sections 12 and 13 of the Legal Practitioners Act, 2004 and other extant provisions of the RPCLP, 2007 and strike out the name of Mr. Gadzama, SAN from the Roll of Legal Practitioners to serve as a deterrent to other erring senior lawyers who have constituted themselves into bad eggs in the profession.

“I know as a fact that the Respondent, Mr. J.K Gadzama, SAN now constitutes a grave danger not only to fellow legal practitioners but also to any Judgment Creditor as Respondent’s law firm of J.K Gdazama, LLP is now a synagogue of fraud and that it behooves this Honourable Court as the apex Court to consolidate this Originating Motion in Appeal No. SC/632/2018: ONYECHI EGWUONWU ESQ. V. JOE KYARI GADZAMA, SAN & OTHERS and Appeal No. SC/214/2017: PETER ORGNU & 3 OTHERS V. DR. ALEXANDER GAADI & 10 OTHERS, and grant all the reliefs sought in the said Originating Motion and apply the full sanctions of law pursuant to Sections 12 and 13 of the Legal Practitioners Act, LFN. 2004, otherwise the Respondent and his likes will continue to hold the Bar and Bench and other auxiliary disciplinary bodies such as the LPPC and the LPDC in contempt and ridicule and continue to drag the good name of our noble profession into disrepute.” He deposed.