 |
 |
 |
The Commercial Case Law Index is a collection of judgments from African countries on topics relating to commercial legal practice. The collection aims to provide a snapshot of commercial legal practice in a country, rather than present solely traditionally "reportable" cases. The index currently covers 400 judgments from Uganda, Tanzania, Nigeria, Ghana and South Africa.
Get started on finding judgments that are relevant to you by browsing the topic list on the left of the screen. Click the arrows next to the topic names to reveal a detailed list of sub-topics. Most judgments are accompanied by a short summary written by subject-matter expert postgraduate students from the University of Cape Town.
Shell Petroleum Development Company of Nigeria Limited v Sam Royal Hotel Nigeria Limited (SC. 120/2006)[2016] NGSC 55 (5 February 2016) (SC. 120/2006) [1960] NGSC 1 (04 February 2016); 
CL Index Legal Professional Conduct Legal Profession Legal Professional and Judicial Conduct Filing of Process Institution of proceedings Civil Procedure Procedural Irregularity Errors and rectifications Civil ProcedureA preliminary objection by the respondent set out to expose the lack of due diligence on the part of the appellant. The respondent’s claim was that the appellant’s records were fundamentally defective and incompetent. This was because the records of the appellant were issued signed by "N. Nwanodi & Co," (which is not a legal practitioner recognized by law in Nigeria) instead of counsel’s actual name.
The counsel for appellant stated that the habit of legal practitioners' merely signing court processes in their firm's name without indicating their actual name has been allowed by this court in many cases. Thus, it was an over-adherence to technicality to annul the process improperly filed.
The respondent sought this court to employ purposive interpretation of sections 2(1) and 24 of the Legal Practitioners Act (the act) that would lead to the conclusion that the record filed was indeed fundamentally defective.
This court upheld the preliminary objection of the respondent. It held that the appellant's' notice of appeal was fundamentally defective. It concluded that the purpose of sections 2(1) and 24 of the act was to ensure accountability on the part of a legal practitioner who signs court processes.
Wayo v Nduul and Others (SC.331/2016)[2017] NGSC 4 (9 June 2017) (SC.331/2016) [1960] NGSC 1 (08 June 2017); CL Index Legal Professional Conduct Legal Profession Legal Professional and Judicial ConductUkah and Others v Onyia and Others (CA/E/295/2008)[2016] NGCA 111 (21 January 2016) (CA/E/295/2008) [2016] NGCA 111 (20 January 2016); CL Index Legal Professional Conduct Legal Profession Legal Professional and Judicial Conduct Real Estate Agent Real Estate Agents Contract Law Fiduciary DutiesThe court considered whether the second respondent was an agent of the appellants and entitled to a commission.
The court held that an agency is a fiduciary relationship created when a principal gives authority to an agent to act on his behalf which is accepted by the agent. The court also held that for a real estate agent to claim commission they must show that there was an introduction of a purchaser which was an efficient cause in bringing about the sale of a property. Professional Conduct for Legal Practitioners 2007 Rule 7(2)(b) does not forbid a legal practitioner from engaging in the business of a commission agent.
The court found that there was no illegality in the agency agreement between the second respondent and appellants.
The court accordingly dismissed the appeal and awarded costs to the respondent.
Sudhir Rupaleria (MISC. APPLICATION NO. 1063 OF 2017) [2017] UGCOMMC 153 (21 December 2017); CL Index Fiduciary Relationship Between Attorney and Client Fiduciary relationships Fiduciary Duties Legal Professional Conduct Legal Profession Legal Professional and Judicial ConductThe applicant was a client of the first and second respondents, who represented the plaintiff (third respondent, a company) in a case against the applicant. The applicant claimed that during the legal representation, the first and second respondents became aware of facts prejudicial to him which were a violation of advocate and client relationship, thus applied for an injunction.
The court considered whether the first and second respondents also handled matters which would arise in the suit against the applicant while representing the third respondent.
The court held that where there was a fiduciary relationship, the irrebuttable presumption is that there is a possibility of disclosure. Further, although some authorities state that the applicant should plead the confidential information that could be reviewed, recent authorities have held that such pleading would be contrary to the intended confidentiality.
The court found that there was a fiduciary relationship between the first and second respondents. Moreso, the parties had a relationship of legal and litigation interaction. Therefore, information prejudicial to the applicant would likely emerge.
The court accordingly granted the application and ordered the disqualification of the first and second respondents from the pending suit.
Nyandusi v Oyuko (CIVIL APPLICATION NUMBER 0032 OF 2018) [2018] UGCA 29 (23 May 2018); CL Index Late filing and extension of time to appeal Institution of proceedings Civil Procedure Condonation Orders Civil Procedure Legal Professional Conduct Legal Profession Legal Professional and Judicial ConductThe issue before the court was an application for extension of time to file an appeal.
The applicant was seeking condonation from the court after he failed to file an appeal within the time prescribed by court rules. He based his appeal on the grounds that he was not aware of the judgment and blamed his lawyer for not informing him of the judgment. He argued that it was just and equitable for the court to extend the time to file the appeal and that there was likelihood of success.
The respondent on the other hand opposed the application arguing that the applicant failed to produce evidence to support its application.
In deciding the case, the court held that court rules empower the court to extend time limits if there are sufficient reasons. It ruled that negligence on the part of the applicant’s counsel amounts to sufficient reason for extension of time limits. The court found that refusal to extend the time limits will cause injustice to the applicant.
The application for extension of time was granted.