Blessing 008

There was drama at the federal high court 1, Enugu under the Honourable Justice Liman, when the hearing of suit no: FHC/EN/CS/120/2017, filed by Dr. Paul Emeka through his attorney Ifeanyichukwu Okonkwo, against:
1. The Corporate Affairs Commission
2. Incorporated trustee of Assemblies of God, Nigeria
3. Rev. Dr. John Ogbale Ikoni
4. Rev. Dr. Chidi Agodi Okorafor
5. Rev. Vincent Akin Alaje
6. Rev. Godwin Mekedo Idogo
7. Rev. Johnson Okorie Odii
8. Rev. Dr. Charles Ogbonnaya Osueke
9. Rev. J. V. Edivri
10. Rev. Pastor Ejikeme Ejim
11. Rev. Godwin Akpan Amaowoh (PhD),
was called up. The drama started when Mr. Okonkwo pointed out that there was no 20th defendant, that the applicant, the lawyer to the defendants a senior Advocate of Nigeria, Barr Ndiweigwe’s, removal of the parties involved and adding other people he didn’t sue, deciding by himself without permission to make people not sued part of the case an error, a grave error which the SAN conceded to, and corrected himself, as representing defendants 2-11.
The SAN, without addressing the reliefs sought by Dr Paul Emeka, through his attorney Mr okonkwo, had pointed out that the attorney was a layman, not a legal practitioner, and so the court should restrain him from appearing as a ‘Legal Practitioner’ quoting from the Legal practitioners act, section 22, I D
In his response, the ‘Layman’, Mr. Okonkwo, said he had filed his reply in law. He said he had never appeared as a legal practitioner, which the SAN claimed, and could not be caged by a law he is not part of. He gave the instance of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of, Asafa foods factory Vs Alraine Nig. Ltd. 2002, 12, NWLR, Pt 781, 353, pg 373, which states:
“The position of the law is clear that a person may decide to act by another as his agent and set the benefit or bear the liability of that arrangement. The one who authorizes is the principal while the authorized is the agent. The agent acts as if it is the principal who does act”.
He noted that when the Donee of power of attorney sues on behalf of the Donor, that makes him the agent of the Donor.
He also quoted the Court of appeal decision in Johnson Vs Osay 2001, 9, NWLR, (Pt 719), 729, @ pg 743
“It is not compulsory for a litigant to engage the services of a legal practitioner, as it is not every litigant that can afford the services of one…” and so must not be a reason to deny the plaintiff justice.
The Learned judge, who educated everyone in court, noted that an agent can institute an action through his agent as Justice Salami stated, as if he were there, and a party can either defend his case or decide to donate it to anyone.
He said an attorney can institute a contractual agent under the common law not the statutory act that governs the legal practitioners act. he pointed out that the context of sect 22, of the legal practitioners act, deals extensively in respect to a person who signs as a legal practitioner not an attorney since, okonkwo was not purporting to act as a legal practitioner but a legal representative attorney as his rights as a citizen
He believes Nigeria, is still backwards in this area, while the developed countries are leaping into the 22 century. He believes people should be allowed to defend themselves when not able to engage the services of a lawyer
The case was adjourned to the 9, of March for ruling
We will continue to follow up and bring you all the details as it comes up.

very interesting.
I think people should be allowed to defend themselves in court in they can't afford a lawyer or don't need one.
When u don't allow a person to defend himself; it becomes injustice on the part of the law.