"In compensating a legal practitioner upon a quantum meruit for services he has actually rendered, it will be more realistic to make assessment on the basis of the particulars of the nature of work done by him to arrive at what can be considered a reasonable compensation."
AZUASONOGO vs. BENUE STATE GOVERNMENT & ANOR.(2019)LPELR-47270(CA)
ISSUE: RECOVERY OF CHARGES BY LEGAL PRACTITIONERS-Preconditions a legal practitioner must fulfil before commencing an action to recover fees upon a bill of charges
PRINCIPLE:
"Usually, the legal practitioner and his client would agree in advance on professional fees or rely on the terms of any agreement reached for payment of his fees at the conclusion of the matter. He would be paid upon the agreed fees. However, where he has not received his fees, by Section 16 (1) of the LPA, he must first of all , prepare a bill of charges or a bill for the charges which should duly particularize the principal items of his claim; second, he must serve his client with the bill ; and third, he must allow a period of one month to elapse from the date the bill was served; Rebold Industries Ltd. v. Magreola & Ors. (2015) LPELR-24612(SC); Oyekanmi v. National Electric Power Authority (2000) LPELR-2873(SC); GTB Plc. & Anor. v. Anyanwu, Esq. (2011) LPELR-4220(CA).
This Court in GTB Plc. & Anor. v. Anyanwu, Esq. (supra) per Augie, JCA, (as he then was) considered the circumstance when a legal practitioner has not been paid his fees and there was no agreement by the parties thereon as follows, pages 24 - 26 of the E-Report: "A legal practitioner has a right to be remunerated for his services; he can either be paid in advance upon named fees or rely on the terms of any agreement reached for his fees. However, if he has not received his fees and no agreement was reached as to what they would be, he must submit his bill of charges - see Oyo V. Mercantile Bank (Nig.) Ltd. (1989) 3 NWLR (Pt. 108) 213. All the relevant authorities say that reasonable remuneration must be given for the actual service rendered by a claimant on quantum meruit, which is Latin for "as much as he deserved" - see SBN Ltd. V. Opanubi (2004) 15
NWLR (Pt. 896) 437 SC. In effect, when the bill of charges or fees (as they are called) are properly brought by the legal practitioner in compliance with the provision of the LPA, the Court will normally give judgment for the amount of fees so claimed unless there are other factors preventing it from doing so, such as the absence or non-existence of any agreement for the payment of the fees by the client or an attempt by the legal practitioner to illegally enrich himself at the expense of his client (by way of champarty) - see Oyo V. Mercantile Bank (Nig.) Ltd. (supra) and Akingbehin V. Thompson (2008) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1083) 270, where Adamu, JCA, added as follows- "In some cases, even where the charges or fees were not agreed upon or fixed by a contract between the parties - the Court can award a reasonable fees or remuneration to the legal practitioner for his services actually rendered or admitted to have been rendered by him at the request or instruction of his client on the basis of quantum meruit or quasi- contract. See also SBN Ltd. V. Opanubi (supra), where Uwaifo, JSC, held - "- - The Respondent - - was expected to provide parameters and necessary evidence upon which the Court would assess what is reasonable compensation on quantum meruit for the services rendered by him - - He ought to have indicated in the bill of charges the nature of the various aspects of the services he rendered; his experience at the bar which matched the skill the particular legal matters demanded; and in evidence justified the reasonableness of the charges for the services. A legal practitioner should be able to present a bill of charges which, among other facts, should particularize his fees and charges, e.g. (a) perusing documents and giving professional advice; (b) conducting necessary (specified) inquiries; (c) drawing up the writ of summons and statement of claim; (d) number of appearances in Court and the dates; (e) summarized statement of the work done in Court, indicating some peculiar difficult nature of the case (if any) so as to give an insight to the client as to what he is being asked to pay for; (f) the standing of counsel at the bar in terms of years of
experience and/or the rank with which he is invested in the profession. It is necessary to indicate amount of fees against each of these items. - - In compensating a legal practitioner upon a quantum meruit for services he has actually rendered, it will be more realistic to make assessment on the basis of the particulars of the nature of work done by him to arrive at what can be considered a reasonable compensation. It is then a sum which "the Judge appears to have arrived at on consideration of all necessary factors would be a reasonable remuneration in all the circumstances" as observed by Lord Atkinson in Way v. Latila". In this case, notwithstanding anything the Respondent may have said to the contrary, there is no evidence whatsoever before the Court that his fees were agreed upon or fixed by any contract between the parties. As the Appellants pointed out, he never pleaded that the parties agreed on any fees not to mention N12.5 Million Naira fees he demanded from them and he never gave any such evidence either. Nonetheless, a Court can award a reasonable fees or remuneration to a legal practitioner for his services actually rendered or admitted to have been rendered by him
- see Akingbehin V. Thompson (supra), SBN Ltd. V. Opanubi (supra)." (Emphasis mine) In light of the foregoing, it is my view that although the Respondents are estopped from denying their obligation to pay the Appellant for his professional charges, this obligation must be fulfilled in respect of services actually rendered or admitted to have been rendered by him on the basis of quantum meruit. For direction, it would be enlightening to place the details of Exhibit B1 under the scrutiny of evidence adduced before the lower Court. The Appellant had in Exhibit B1 claimed as follows: Consultation Fees - N100, 000.00; Research, preparation, filing of defence Processes, and other
related interlocutory applications in Suit No. MHC/83/2013 - N8, 000,000.00;
Appearance in suit No MHC/83/2013 - N1, 950,000.00. Under cross examination, PW1, the Appellant, admitted that all documents of the Respondents had been filed before he came into the matter, page 135 of the Record of Appeal. In other words, the Appellant filed no process in the matter before that trial Court, not even an interlocutory application. In any event, the Appellant did not controvert the evidence of DW1 that the Respondents, being public officers, paid no filing fees, whether or not the suit was handled on their behalf by private practitioners. That is to say, even if the Appellant had filed any process, he would not have needed to pay any fees. The Appellant lumped
together his charges for Research, preparation, filing of defence Processes, and other related interlocutory applications at N8, 000,000.00. Since he filed no process, on his own admission, no payment was due on this head. The unchallenged evidence of DW1 was that counsel appearance fees per sitting in Benue State High Court was no more than N2, 000.00. In Exhibit B3, the trial Court in
its judgment noted that there had been delays in the hearing of the matter, which pushed conclusion of the matter to 9/10/2015. The charge for appearances was put at the sum of N1, 950,000.00, which if shared by N2, 000.00 per sitting that would mean that the Appellant appeared for the matter 975 times in about two years. The Appellant gave no details of the number of appearances, and this is
understandable because as at the time Exhibit B1 was given, the Appellant had not appeared at all in the matter. This detail of the charge was therefore anticipatory. The evidence before the lower Court was that the Appellant had his law office in Gboko but had to travel to Makurdi in order to appear for the hearing of the matter, which was concluded more than two years after he was instructed. He testified that he lodged in hotels throughout the duration of the case. The Respondents challenged this item. However, to my mind, although the Appellant presented no hotel receipt, he did not need to. Traveling and lodging in order to appear and conduct defence in the matter was an identifiable cost. It must be emphasized that the Appellant presented his bill of charges, Exhibit B1, before he appeared in the matter at all or assessed what would be his fees for his professional skills. At the conclusion of
the matter, the Appellant also failed to review the bill of charges, Exhibit B1, in order to adjust it in line with realities. In consequence, the Appellant presented no charge for his professional skill , as is the norm. I would agree with the learned trial Judge that the bill of charges ought to have finally been presented: ". . at the close of the particular assignment for which the services of the legal practitioner has been engaged, at which time he would have become aware of all the extra expenses incurred in addition to his agreed professional fee." Nevertheless, in determining fair compensation for the Appellant, having regard to the evidence adduced, I find particularly instructive and shall be guided by the decision of the Apex Court per Uwaifo, JSC, in SBN PLC. v. Opanubi (2004) LPELR-3023(SC) at page 24 - 25 of the E-Report, as follows: "In compensating a legal practitioner upon a quantum meruit for services he has actually rendered, it will be more realistic to make assessment on the basis of the particulars of the nature of work done by him to arrive at what can be considered a reasonable compensation. It is then a sum which "the Judge appears to have arrived at on consideration of all necessary factors would be a reasonable remuneration in all the circumstances" as observed by Lord Atkinson in Way v. Latila (supra);. ." Unfortunately, however, there were no parameters presented in evidence to enable the Court arrive at a realistic assessment of reasonable
compensation due to the Appellant. These parameters would include particulars of the nature of work undertaken, the Appellant's years at the Bar, etc. These details are all missing and cannot
be speculated upon by this Court." Per OTISI, JCA.(Pp.39-48,Paras.E-E).
ISSUE: DUTY OF COURT-Duty of Court when assessing the entitlement of a legal practitioner to his professional fees
PRINCIPLE:
"It is clear that the bill of charges relied upon by the appellant was received by the 2nd respondent as is evidenced in paragraph 7 of the written deposition of respondents' witness, Sylvanus Agbaji, wherein he stated, "That I am very much aware that when the bill of charges of the plaintiff was received by the 2nd defendant. ." The 2nd respondent did not object to the bill nor did he have it taxed long after receiving it. The result is that it is considered prima facie to be right. Nevertheless, it is permissible to treat the claim based on the bill as if it were an action at law in which the respondents would be allowed to question the reasonableness of the particular items which could have been objected to had there been taxation. In other words, the bill is litigable as to its quantum. See Oyekanmi V. National Electric Power Authority (2000) 15 NWLR (Pt. 690) 414, 436. I have looked at the items in the bill of charges vis-a-vis evidence led in this matter. It is clear to me that item No. 3 on the bill of charges is not only questionable but also unjustifiable.
Item 3 reads: "3. Research, preparation, filing (sic) of defence processes, and other related interlocutory applications in suit No. MHC/83/2013 - N8,000,000:00." The appellant admitted in cross - examination that all the processes of the respondents had been filed before he came into the matter. Furthermore, the DW1 testified that filing fees are not paid by the respondents, they being public officers. The appellant is therefore not entitled to be paid in respect of that item. It is the duty of the Court to ensure that in assessing the entitlement of a legal practitioner to fees for his professional service, he is paid appropriate fees for the services actually rendered and not for services not rendered, as to do otherwise would amount to unjust enrichment. The appellant is entitled to his consultation fee. Though he did not state his age at the bar, it is my view that the sum of N100,000:00 is a reasonable sum of money therefor. He is entitled to N1,000,000:00 for appearance as methodically arrived at by my learned brother." Per EKANEM, JCA.(Pp.50-52,Paras.B-A).
: Recovery of Charges by Legal Practitioners.- By Adedotun Habeeb Adetunji, LL.M (M.IoD), FCAI){kind=link}
0 Comments