Why Courts Imposed Millions Against Babalola, Olanipekun, Ozekhome, Keyamo

 

The award of millions of naira in costs against some senior lawyers by the courts have created surprises among legal observers.

Many Nigerians are familiar with punitive fines or damages imposed by the courts against parties in matters deserving of such, but not much is known about lawyers being directly penalised for bringing some actions before the courts.

Some of the prominent costs by the courts include the Supreme Court’s award of N40m against Mike Ozekhome (SAN) and N30m each which were imposed on SANs Afe Babalola and Wole Olanipekun, while N10m was awarded against Festus Keyamo, N20m was against Chuks Nwachukwu, N40m and N2m against Daniel Elombah.

In the latest award on December 5, a five-member panel of justices presided over by Justice Inyang Okoro fined Ozekhome N40m after deeming his application on behalf of a former Governor of Imo State, Emeka Ihedioha, to be frivolous and brought outside the jurisdiction of the court.

PDP and Ihedioha’s application had sought to remove Governor Hope Uzodinma from office on the premise that he was not validly nominated by the All Progressives Congress (APC) to contest the election that led to his first tenure in 2019.

The application further sought to invalidate the years that Uzodinma spent in office as governor.

The PDP and Ihedioha had applied to join the appeal challenging Uzodinma’s qualification, which was originally filed by Uche Nwosu, who was the governorship candidate of the Action Alliance (AA).

Specifically, the PDP and Ihedioha asked the Supreme Court to give effect to its 2019 verdict that disqualified Nwosu on the ground that he was nominated by both the AA and the APC to contest the election, and as such APC had no candidate in the election.

Similarly, the Supreme Court on February 26, 2020, imposed N30m against Babalola and Olanipekun over the application seeking a review of the judgment in the APC and its governorship candidate and running mate in the Bayelsa State election, David Lyon Pereworinmin and Biobarakuma Degi-Eremienyo, respectively.

A seven-member panel led by Justice Amina Augie, in the lead ruling, rebuked both lawyers while awarding the N30m punitive cost against each of them.

Both lawyers, however, forwarded protest letters to the National Executive Council (NEC) of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA), insisting that they did no wrong by asking the court to take a second look at its earlier judgment in the matter.

Similarly, on May 25, the Court of Appeal in Abuja awarded the sum of N40m in costs against a former presidential candidate, Ambrose Owuru, for filing a “frivolous suit” seeking to stop the inauguration of President Bola Tinubu.

The lead judgment in the matter read by Justice Jamil Tukur held that Owuru’s action was a gross abuse of court process, a “vexatious and irritating suit to provoke the respondents.”

Owuru had in 2019 filed the appeal seeking to declare the office of the president vacant and he be sworn in as the president because he won the presidential election and had not completed his term of office.

Also, on May 29, a Federal High Court in Abuja dismissed a suit seeking to stop the inauguration of Bola Tinubu as President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria on May 29.

A group, the Concerned Nigerians, filed the suit seeking the disqualification of Tinubu over alleged perjury on his dual citizenship of Nigeria and Guinea.

Justice James Omotosho held that the court lacked the jurisdiction to entertain the suit.

The court also held that the applicants, being participants as only voters in the February 25, presidential election did not afford them the locus standi to bring the action.

The court ordered the applicants, Praise Ilemona Isaiah, Pastor Paul Isaac Audu and Dr Anongu Moses and their lawyer, Daniel Elombah, to pay N17m to Tinubu and APC.

The judge ordered a 10 per cent interest on the cost until it was liquidated.

Earlier, the judge said the suit was an abuse of the court as the court lacked the jurisdiction to hear all post-election matters.

On June 6, Justice Mike Omotosho imposed the sum of N10m against Keyamo, who is currently the Minister of Aviation, over a “frivolous application”.

Keyamo had filed a suit seeking an order to compel investigative agencies to investigate former Vice President and PDP presidential candidate in the election, Atiku Abubakar, for allegedly using a Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV) to corruptly enrich himself.

But the judge said Keyamo lacked the locus standi to institute the suit having failed to establish any special interest over and beyond other members of the public, or show any damage suffered by him.

On June 6, a Federal High Court in Abuja imposed the sum of N20m in cost against Chuks Nwachukwu over engaging in professional misconduct in instituting a frivolous suit challenging Tinubu’s failure to obtain 25 per cent of the votes in the last general elections.

The residents/voters were represented by Anyaegbunam Ubaka Okoye, David Aondover Adzer, Jeffrey Oheobeh Ucheh, Osang Paul and Chibuke Nwachukwu.

The judge, who condemned Nwachukwu’s comments in the media, said that if the lawyer had been in the courtroom, he would have been barred “from practising until he appeared before the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee (LPDC) to determine whether he was fit to practice the profession.

“But since he is not in court, I make an order, directing the registrar to forward all the processes to LPDC to determine whether he is fit to practice the profession.”


Lawyers speak

Reacting, Chuks Nwachukwu said lawyers who had been imposed with costs in millions of naira didn’t necessarily have to pay the fines except the opponents were keen on receiving same.

“The costs are usually symbolic and are not to the court but to the opponent,” he said.

In his view, E M D Umukoro said there were two ways: as where the lawyer advised the client against such a decision, naturally the lawyer would ask the client to pay because he or she insisted, but if it was the lawyer, he had to pay.

“Maybe the middle ground may be that the client may say that, ‘I trust you and you are doing it for me’, so he will take the responsibility.”

Also responding, Chinelo Ogbazor said costs were usually awarded in favour of the adverse party and personally against the lawyer. So, the lawyer would be expected to pay to the account which would be provided by that party.