recovery of solicitors fees in litigation in nigeria: change is upon us!
DESCRIPTION
An article on the recovery of solicitor's fees in litigation in Nigeria and the impact of a recent decision of the Supreme Court.TRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: RECOVERY OF SOLICITORS FEES IN LITIGATION IN NIGERIA: CHANGE IS UPON US!](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022081723/568c578c1a28ab4916caf1df/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
RECOVERY OF SOLICITORS FEES IN LITIGATION IN NIGERIA: CHANGE IS UPON US!
In the case of UNION BANK OF NIGERIA PLC. v. MR. N.M. OKPARA CHIMAEZE1 the
Supreme Court of Nigeria, in a decision that may have significantly altered the attitude of
the courts on this subject, decided on the issue of a successful party in a litigation recovering
his solicitor’s fees from the other party to the proceedings.
FACTS
The Respondent/Cross-Appellant as Plaintiff, took out a Writ at the Edo State High Court
(“the trial court”) against the Appellant/Cross-Respondent claiming the sum of N30,000,000
(Thirty Million Naira) as general and special damages for the wrongful dishonour of the
cheque he drew on the Appellant/Cross-Respondent bank in favour of Lever Brothers
Nigeria Plc. The Respondent/Cross-Appellant claimed that he had enough credit in the
account which he operated as a general trader and major distributor of the Lever Brothers
Nigeria Plc for the Appellant/Cross-Respondent to honour the cheque. As part of his claims
against the bank, the Plaintiff claimed the sum of N250,000 as special damages for his
solicitor’s professional fees for representing him in the suit.
On its part, the Appellant/Cross-Respondent contended that the lodgement of N206,000
into Respondent/Cross-Appellant's account was fictitious and that the purported
documentary evidence that one Miss. D. Nwakaeze had deposited the amount is fraudulent.
The bank further contended that a conspiracy between one of its staff and the
Respondent/Cross-Appellant's staff was behind the fictitious entry in the latter's account.
The Respondent/Cross-Appellant therefore, never had the required credit in his account to
warrant the payment of the cheque he issued and same was duly dishonoured.
DECISIONS OF THE LOWER COURTS
In the High Court, the trial Judge, Omage J., having found that the Respondent/Cross-
Appellant had sufficient money in his account and the Appellant/Cross-Respondent had
wrongly dishonoured his cheque for the sum of N205,936.00k issued in favour of the Lever
Brothers Nig Plc, awarded the Respondent/Cross-Appellant N100,000 and N250,000.00k 1 (2014) LPELR-22699(SC)
![Page 2: RECOVERY OF SOLICITORS FEES IN LITIGATION IN NIGERIA: CHANGE IS UPON US!](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022081723/568c578c1a28ab4916caf1df/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
general and special damages respectively. The N250,000 awarded to the Plaintiff as special
damages represented the cost of his solicitor’s professional fees for legal representation in
the suit.
Dissatisfied with the trial court's judgment, the Appellant/Cross-Respondent appealed to
the Court of Appeal on an amended Notice of Appeal containing five Grounds of Appeal. The
Respondent/Cross-Appellant also appealed against the trial court's judgment. The Court of
Appeal in its judgment dismissed Appellant's appeal in its entirety, allowed in part the
Respondent's Cross-Appeal and consequentially increased the general damages awarded
the latter from N100,000.00 (One Hundred Thousand Naira) by N1,000,000.00 (One Million
Naira). Aggrieved, both parties appealed against the judgment of the Court of Appeal with
the Appellant/Cross-Respondent complaining that the increase of the general damages of
N100,000.00 (One Hundred Thousand Naira) awarded to the Respondent/Cross-Appellant
by the trial court to N1,100,000.00 (One Million One Hundred Thousand Naira) by the Court
of Appeal is excessive. On his part, the Respondent/Cross-Appellant's grudge in his appeal
was that the lower court's increase is still insufficient.
DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT
One of the issues formulated for determination by the Supreme Court was:
"Whether or not the court below was right in affirming the
award of the sum of N250,000 (solicitor's costs) as special
damages to the Respondent in the circumstances of this suit.”
In reaching its decision, the Supreme Court considered the averment of the
Respondent/Cross-Appellant in his pleadings where he, at paragraphs 21 and 22 of his
amended statement of claim, averred as follows:-
"21. Plaintiff avers that he ran and briefed his solicitors Messrs
G.C. Igbokwe & Co who charged him N250,000 (Two Hundred
And Fifty Thousand Naira) only to prosecute this action.
![Page 3: RECOVERY OF SOLICITORS FEES IN LITIGATION IN NIGERIA: CHANGE IS UPON US!](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022081723/568c578c1a28ab4916caf1df/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
22. Plaintiff avers that he made a deposit of N150,000 to the said
solicitors who issued him a receipt. The solicitor's receipt No. 045
of 2405/94 shall be funded upon at the trial of this action."
The court also considered the oral evidence given by the Respondent/Cross-Appellant
before the trial court to the effect that he had paid his solicitor professional fees to
represent him in the suit and the fact that the only rebuttal of this fact by the
Appellant/Cross-Respondent came in the form of a general traverse. The Supreme Court
held that the Respondent/Cross-Appellant had shown that his solicitors charged him
N250,000.00 to prosecute this case for him and also went further to claim the said sum as
special damages in paragraph 25 of his amended statement of claim among his other heads
of claim before the trial court. The court further held that even if paragraphs 21 and 22 of
the Respondent/Cross-Appellant's Statement of Claim were denied by the Appellant/Cross-
Respondent, the Respondent/Cross-Appellant had established same by preponderance of
evidence before the trial court.
The decision of the Supreme Court to affirm the award of special damages to the
Respondent was based on the principle that where a Claimant claims to have suffered
special damages and goes on to prove the damages by laying concrete evidence
demonstrating in no uncertain terms easily cognisable the loss or damages he has suffered,
so that the opposing party and the Court as umpire would readily see and appreciate the
nature of the special damages suffered and being claimed, such claimant is entitled to an
award of the special damages in his favour. In this case the Respondent had fulfilled the
legal requirement entitling him to special damages for his solicitor’s fees.
Consequently the Supreme Court affirmed the decisions of both the trial court and the Court
of Appeal in awarding the Respondent/Cross-Appellant the sum of N250,000 representing
the cost of his solicitor’s fees for representing him in the suit, as special damages.
COMMENT
Generally, in Nigeria, the practice in litigation is for the parties to bear their respective costs
of legal representation. Whilst there is authority for the proposition that solicitor’s fees are
![Page 4: RECOVERY OF SOLICITORS FEES IN LITIGATION IN NIGERIA: CHANGE IS UPON US!](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022081723/568c578c1a28ab4916caf1df/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
in the nature of special damages and have to be specifically pleaded and proved before they
can be awarded by the court, the award of solicitor’s fees to the successful party in litigation
is a rarity in Nigeria.
In many cases, where a Claimant claims for the cost of legal representation or his solicitor’s
fees in litigation, when judgment is given by the court, such claims are routinely roundly
ignored by the court, or, costs, when awarded, are insubstantial, even where the Claimant
may have succeeded in a substantial claim. In some other cases, where claims for solicitor’s
fees have not been ignored by the court, but have been in issue, the attitude of the courts
to the claims has been generally negative. In EMIRATES AIRLINE v. TOCHUKWU AFORKA &
ANOR2 where at the trial court the Plaintiff claimed the sum of N2,500,000 as the cost of
solicitor’s fees Court of Appeal per Iyizoba, JCA held thus:
“Claims for both special and general damages or for solicitor's
fees are not appropriate in an action for breach of contract
except where there is an agreement by the parties to that
effect.
A decision which perhaps most encapsulates the attitude of the courts to the award of
claims for solicitor’s fees is that of the Court of Appeal in GUINNESS (NIG) PLC V. NWOKE3.
In that case, even after the Court of Appeal held that ‘it is not in doubt that the head of
claim (of special damages for solicitor’s fees) was pleaded with some particularity and was
strictly proved’, the court still went on to decide on the claim for special damages for
solicitor’s fees that:
“It is also unethical and an affront to public policy to pass on
the burden of Solicitor's fees to the other party, in this case
the cross-respondent…I am of the strong view that this type of
claim is outlandish to the operation of the principle of special
damages and it should not be allowed. It is absolutely
improper to allow the cross-appellant to pass his financial
2 (2014) LPELR-22686(CA)3 (2000) 15 NWLR (Pt. 689) 135
![Page 5: RECOVERY OF SOLICITORS FEES IN LITIGATION IN NIGERIA: CHANGE IS UPON US!](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022081723/568c578c1a28ab4916caf1df/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
responsibility couched as 'special damages' to the cross-
respondent.”
Considering the fact that the foregoing, as evidenced in the above authorities, has been the
attitude of the courts to claims for solicitor’s fees by successful parties to litigation, the
decision of the Supreme Court in UNION BANK OF NIGERIA PLC v. MR. N.M. OKPARA
CHIMAEZE is significant as it is the first decision of the Apex court on this particular issue,
more importantly, as it represents a change in stance, on the award of claims for solicitor’s
fees by parties to litigation.
MOFESOMO TAYO-OYETIBO4
4 Mofesomo Tayo-Oyetibo is a legal practitioner and in the Law firm of Tayo Oyetibo & Co and is a member of the Firm’s Dispute Resolution and Commercial Law Practice Groups.