“While an itemized bill of costs, as required by section 16(2) (a) of the Legal Practitioners Act is desirable, the fact that a legal practitioner’s bill of charges with particulars are not itemized will not amount to non-compliance with the law or render it a nullity for non-conformity with the provisions of the Act. In other words, the court looks to the substance rather than the form. This is because the requirement of the statute is to give information to the client.” KEKERE-EKUN, J.S.C
Citation: (2021) 16 N.W.L.R PART. 195 AT 283- 294.
COURTESY: Moruff O. Balogun, FIMC, CMC, CMS
Summary of facts:The respondent is a legal practitioner. He rendered professional services to the original defendant, one of which was for legal documentation on her purchase of the property at No. 17, Eric Moore Street, Wemabod Estate, Ikeja, Lagos State for which he charged her N450, 000 representing 5% of the transaction. Upon the original defendant’s failure to pay the fee, the respondent served her a demand letter dated 1st March 2001 in which the respondent threatened a law suit if the money was not paid within seven days of receipt of the letter, and a reminder dated 23rd April 2001 in which the respondent again threatened a law suit if the money was not paid within seven days of receipt of the letter.
Subsequently, by a writ of summons dated 7th May 2001, the respondent sued the original defendant, and sought the following reliefs:
(a) N450,000 being the professional fees on legal documentation in respect of the purchase of the property at 17 Eric Moore Street, Wemabod Estate in Ikeja, Lagos State.
(b) 71/2% interest on N450,000 from the date of the writ of summons until judgment is delivered and at the rate of 21% from judgment till the judgment sum was paid.
(c) N500,000 as being general damages on the series of inconveniences, expenses and losses incurred by the respondent and occasioned by the original defendant in pursuit of the claim.
Upon being served with the processes, the original defendant filed a statement of defence and the case was set down for hearing. The respondent testified in support of his pleadings and tendered documents including the letters of demand as exhibits GA4 and GA5. He was cross-examined by the original defendant’s counsel. But the original defendant did not testify and did not lead any evidence in support of her pleadings.
At the end of hearing, counsel on either side submitted written addresses. It was contended on behalf of the original defendant that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the suit because the respondent failed to fulfill the condition precedent to the institution of the suit. Relying on section 16(1) and (2) of the Legal Practitioners Act, Cap. 207, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 1990 (hereinafter referred to as the LPA), it was argued that no bill of charges containing the particulars stipulated in the LPA was served on the original defendant, and that the period of notice stated in the LPA was not given to her before the suit was commenced.
Therefore, the original defendant argued that the documents relied upon by the respondent did not meet the requirements of a bill of charges and that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the suit.
The trial court upheld the original defendant’s argument and dismissed the suit.
On the respondent’s appeal, the Court of Appeal held that there was substantial compliance with the provisions of section 16 of the LPA. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment of the trial court. The Court of Appeal also granted reliefs (a) and (b) sought by the respondent, and awarded N300,000 to the respondent as general damages under relief (c).
The original defendant at the trial court was aggrieved and she appealed to the Supreme Court. Before the appeal could be heard, she died and was substituted with the appellants.In determining the appeal, the Supreme Court, KEKERE-EKUN, J.S.C ( delivering the leading judgment ) considered sections 16(2) (a) and (b) and 19(1) of the Legal Practitioners Act, which provide:“16(2) Subject as aforesaid, a legal practitioner shall not be entitled to begin an action to recover his charges unless:
(a) a bill for the charges containing particulars of the principal items included in the bill and signed by him or in the case of a firm by one of the partners or in the name of the firm has been served on the client personally or left for him at his last address as known to the legal practitioner or sent by post addressed to the client at that address.
(b) the period of one month beginning with the date of delivery of the bill has expired.
19(1) ‘bill of charges’ means such a bill as is mentioned in paragraph (a) of subsection (2) of section 16 of this Act ‘charges’ means any charges (whether by way of fees/disbursements/expenses or otherwise) in respect of anything done by a legal practitioner in his capacity as a legal practitioner.”
Held: Unanimously allowing the appeal in part.
1. On whether failure to itemize bill of charges renders it a nullity for non-conformity with provisions of the Legal Practitioners Act -While an itemized bill of costs, as required by section 16(2) (a) of the Legal Practitioners Act is desirable, the fact that a legal practitioner’s bill of charges with particulars are not itemized will not amount to non-compliance with the law or render it a nullity for non-conformity with the provisions of the Act. In other words, the court looks to the substance rather than the form. This is because the requirement of the statute is to give information to the client. In this case, the Court of Appeal rightly held that though exhibits GA4 and GAS are headed as demand letters, their contents fully particularized the nature of the assignments undertaken by the respondent on behalf of the appellant and the fees charged, and that there is no evidence of any reply to either letter disputing the work done or the fees charged. Furthermore, the letters were explicit as to the work done on the appellant’s behalf and the fees charged. The fact that they were not headed “bill of charges” is not sufficient to render them a nullity. Considering it otherwise would amount to promoting form over substantial justice. In the circumstance, the Court of Appeal was right that there was sufficient compliance with section 16(2) (a) of the Legal Practitioner Act as regards the preparation and service of a bill of charges for services rendered by the respondent on the original appellant.