In its 70-page direction dated 29 July, the LPDC found that Mr Gadzama poached and hijacked clients already represented by another lawyer, acted for some judgement creditors who later denied instructing him and continued taking steps in the case after some of them had expressly disowned him.
The full details of the decision of the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee (LPDC) suspending Joe-Kyari Gadzama, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), from legal practice for three years have emerged.
It also suspended another lawyer, Ocha Ulegede, for two years over professional misconduct arising from the same dispute.
But the findings against Mr Gadzama were more severe than previously reported by PREMIUM TIMES and other news outlets.
In its 70-page direction dated 29 July, the committee found that Mr Gadzama poached and hijacked clients already represented by another lawyer, acted for some judgement creditors who later denied instructing him and continued taking steps in the case after some of them had expressly disowned him.
It also found that he relied on a document the Court of Appeal had declared forged and pursued the original N41.8 billion judgement after the parties had agreed to an N8 billion settlement, which was adopted as a consent judgement by the Court of Appeal.
The dispute arose from a prolonged battle over who had authority to represent the judgement creditors, how the settlement should be recovered and distributed, and which lawyers were entitled to fees.
The proceedings followed a complaint by Chris Alashi, a lawyer who alleged that Messrs Gadzama and Ulegede interfered with his representation of some of the judgement creditors.
The LPDC did not impose the same sanction on the two lawyers. Mr Ulegede was suspended for two years, while Mr Gadzama was suspended for three years.
The direction was signed by Umeh Kalu, SAN, the presiding member; Justice Halima Abdulmalik, Chief Judge of Niger State; Justice Halima Mohammed, Chief Judge of Gombe State; Garba Tetengi, SAN; and Solomon Umoh, SAN.
Mr Alashi, the petitioner, appeared in person. O.D. Obande, assisted by O.D. Ulegede and S.A. Odiba, represented Mr Ulegede, while Madu Kyari-Gadzama and Ekenne Clinton represented Mr Gadzama.
The petition
The petition was an offshot of the legal actions taken by the victims, families of deceased persons and survivors of the military attack on Zaki Biam, Benue State, in October 2021.
The military operation followed the killing of 19 soldiers by suspected Tiv militia members after clashes with their Jukun neighbours. The military subsequently invaded communities in Logo, Ukum, Kwande and Katsina-Ala Local Government Areas in retaliation.
Several survivors and families of those killed later sued the Federal Government, seeking compensation for deaths, destruction of property and other losses arising from the military operation.
In July 2007, the Federal High Court awarded the plaintiffs about N41.8 billion in damages against the Federal Government.
The government appealed the judgement but later entered negotiations with the judgment creditors. The negotiations resulted in an N8 billion settlement, which was eventually adopted as a consent judgment by the Court of Appeal.
The settlement did not, however, bring the matter to an end.
Disagreements followed over who had authority to represent the judgement creditors, how the N8 billion should be recovered and distributed, and how much the lawyers involved in the case were entitled to receive as professional fees.
Mr Gadzama became involved in the dispute in 2015, when he said some of the judgement creditors instructed him to challenge the N8 billion settlement and pursue the original N41.8 billion judgement.
Mr Alashi disputed that claim, saying he was already representing some of the judgement creditors. Some of those clients subsequently filed affidavits denying that they had instructed Mr Gadzama.
The petitioner accused Mr Gadzama of attempting to set aside the consent judgement under which the judgement creditors in the Zaki-Biam compensation dispute had agreed to accept N8 billion in settlement of claims that had originally produced judgements totalling N41.8 billion.
In its ruling on Motion No. 377M/2015 in Appeal No. CA/E/410/2008, the Court of Appeal rejected the application to set aside the consent judgment and criticised Mr Gadzama’s intervention in the dispute.
The LPDC quoted the appellate court as saying, “I agree totally with the Learned Counsel for the Respondent/Judgement Creditors’ submission on the ‘despicable role’ played by J.K. Gadzama, SAN who some of us regard and should be seen as a role model.”
The appellate court also considered affidavits in which some of the judgement creditors denied instructing Mr Gadzama to act for them.
It further found that a document Mr Gadzama relied upon to establish his authority to represent some of the judgement creditors was forged.
Judgement creditors denied briefing Gadzama
The LPDC examined several affidavits in which judgement creditors denied that they had instructed Mr Gadzama.
Azenda Igo, one of the judgement creditors, said he had never briefed Mr Gadzama, directly or indirectly, to recover the N41.8 billion judgement or any other amount arising from the case.
He stated that his lawyers remained Mr Ulegede, Sebastine Hon, SAN, and Mr Alashi (the petitioner).
Mr Igo noted that he was “thoroughly shocked” when Mr Alashi showed him a court process filed by Mr Gadzama purportedly on his behalf.
“I never briefed nor instructed the office of Chief J.K. Gadzama, SAN, to file any process and recover the sum of N41.8 billion or any other sum of money arising out of the judgement delivered in my favour by the Federal High Court, Enugu nor the Court of Appeal, Enugu division,” he stated.
