 |
 |
 |
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.
Korboe v Amosa (J4/56/2014) [2016] GHASC 13 (21 April 2016); CL Index Originating Process Institution of proceedings Civil Procedure Legal Professional Conduct Legal Profession Legal Professional and Judicial Conduct Unlicenced Lawyer Legal Profession Legal Professional and Judicial ConductThe court was called upon to review a decision of the Court of Appeal that held that a lawyer without a valid licence to practice cannot practice law nor prepare any court process. The court below held that any process originated by a lawyer without a licence is null. The majority decision of the court held that where a lawyer endorses a writ and court process, but he did not have a licence at the time, he cannot be said to be functioning as a lawyer and not capable of endorsing the court process. A litigant who fails to verify the legal capacity of is lawyer cannot claim miscarriage of justice because the writ endorsed by an unlicensed practitioner is without legal effect.