The Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee has suspended Chief Joe-Kyari Gadzama, SAN (enrolment No. 007748), from legal practice for three years, and Ocha P. Ulegede, Esq. (enrolment No. 006093), for two years, in Complaint No. BB/LPDC/1314/2024 brought by Chris Alashi, Esq.
![](https://thenigerialawyer.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/ELLAN.png")
![](https://thenigerialawyer.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/2026-Summer-IDRI-Masterclass.jpg")
The Final Direction was delivered on July 29, 2026, by Hon. Justice Halima I. Abdulmalik, CJ, Niger State, on behalf of a panel comprising Mr Umeh Kalu, SAN (Presiding Member); Hon. Justice Halima I. Abdulmalik, CJ, Niger; Hon. Justice Halima S. Mohammed, CJ, Gombe; Dr Garba Usman Tetengi, SAN, mni; and Mr Solomon Umoh, SAN.
The Scale of the Record
The Applicant filed an Originating Application dated February 24, 2024, received by the Committee on March 7, 2024. The application, in two volumes, carried a Statement of Complaint, a 90-paragraph affidavit of facts and 50 exhibits marked Exhibits 1 to 44 with sub-numbering.
He subsequently filed a 31-paragraph Further Affidavit with 18 exhibits, a 10-paragraph Further Affidavit with four exhibits, a 20-paragraph Further Affidavit with two exhibits, a 25-paragraph Further Affidavit with 15 exhibits marked CA 1 to CA 12, and a 10-paragraph Further and Better Affidavit on April 21, 2026, with exhibits FB 1 to FB 5.
The 1st Respondent filed a 75-paragraph affidavit of defence on July 22, 2024, with 53 exhibits marked OPU 1 to OPU 53, and a 15-paragraph Further Affidavit on June 1, 2026, with exhibits OPU 54 to OPU 61.
The 2nd Respondent filed a 52-paragraph affidavit of defence with nine exhibits marked JK 1 to JK 9, and further affidavits.
Parties adopted their processes on June 3, 2026, and their written addresses on July 1, 2026.
The Origin: The Consolidated Suits
The Committee found that Ulegede was first briefed by Dr Alexander Gaadi to sue the Nigerian Army and three others over the destruction of his properties during the Zaki-Biam military invasion, and subsequently by Dr Gaadi and 13 others for similar claims.
He filed Suit No. FHC/MKD/CS/41/2001 and Suit No. FHC/MKD/CS/6/2002, which were consolidated and tried together.
The Federal High Court awarded N31.8 billion in the first suit in favour of Dr Gaadi and N10 billion in the second in favour of the 14 judgment creditors, totalling N41.8 billion.
How the Applicant Came In
In 2008, after judgment, the 12th Judgment Creditor approached and briefed the Applicant to represent himself and the 8th, 9th, 10th and 11th Judgment Creditors, “claiming that since the judgment they had been ostracized and abandoned by Dr. Gaadi and the 1st Respondent.”
The Applicant informed Ulegede of the brief, “and he totally rebuffed him.” He then filed Exhibits 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7, being Notices of Change of Counsel with supporting affidavits from his clients.
“Different Persons Stood Up Falsely Presenting Themselves”
The Committee made a striking finding on the events of February 12, 2009, in Suit No. FHC/MKD/CS/09/2008.
“Even though the Applicant had filed a notice of change of counsel and some of his clients are his blood relations, when he appeared for his clients on 12th February, 2009, different persons stood up falsely presenting themselves as his clients,” the Committee found.
“The 1st Respondent incredibly claimed he did not know his clients as he was dealing with them through Dr. Gaadi,” it added.
The Makurdi Petition and Senator Akume
The Applicant petitioned the NBA Makurdi Branch on July 31, 2009. The branch set up the Prof. A. Imbwaseh Committee to investigate.
“Consequent upon the petition to NBA, Makurdi Branch and the setting up of the Prof. A. Imbwaseh Committee to investigate, the 1st Respondent ran to Senator G. Akume to intervene, who then directed S.T. Hon, SAN to resolve the issue, resulting in the Applicant writing a letter of withdrawal to the NBA Makurdi branch which the 1st Respondent personally collected from him and served on the branch,” the Committee found.
Ulegede denied this account, stating he was “neither scared of the petition nor did he run to Senator Akume,” and that it was he who had alerted Akume of his own intention to petition S.T. Hon, SAN.
The AGF’s Condition
At a meeting on May 21, 2013, presided over by the then Attorney-General of the Federation, Mohammed Bello Adoke, SAN, CFR, the N41.8 billion was compromised to N8 billion.
The Committee found that when Ulegede protested the Applicant’s representation, the AGF “cautioned that in view of the documentary facts at his disposal, the 1st Respondent’s resistance is legally untenable and will not help the matter,” and further “stated that the compromised judgment sum will not be disbursed unless the 1st Respondent resolves his differences with the Applicant.”
The UBA Joint Account
On May 23, 2013, the Applicant, Ulegede and S.T. Hon, SAN, met and signed UBA joint account opening forms. Account No. 206293494 was opened on May 28, 2013.
“The details of the Joint Bank account were fully captured in the Terms of Settlement adopted as consent Judgment in appeal No. CA/410/2008 by the Court of Appeal,” the Committee found.
The Rules in Issue
The Committee set out Rule 27(1) and (4) of the Rules of Professional Conduct 2023: “A lawyer shall observe good faith and fairness in dealing with other lawyers,” and “Where a lawyer is aware, or ought reasonably to be aware, that a person is already represented in a particular matter, he shall not have any dealing with that person in respect of the same matter without giving prior notice to the other lawyer, and the lawyer accepting the instructions shall use his best endeavours to ensure that all fees due to the other lawyer in the matter were paid.”
It also cited Rule 29(1)(b): “Where a client changes his lawyer on a pending matter, the new lawyer shall use his best endeavours to ensure that the former lawyer is paid his earned fees.”
And Rule 1: “A lawyer shall uphold and observe the rule of law, promote and foster the course of justice, maintain a high standard of professional conduct, and shall not engage in any conduct which is unbecoming of a legal practitioner.”
It noted the position of the judgment creditors: “The Judgment Creditors are indigent, having lost everything in the massacre and invasion. Legal fees were to be assessed from the judgment sum.”
THE FINDINGS AGAINST ULEGEDE
The Two Withdrawn Suits
The Committee found that on February 11, 2021, Ulegede filed Suit No. FHC/LF/CS/2/2021, Jacob Gaadi v. Peter Orngu & Ors, at the Federal High Court, Lafia, “claiming N6.1 billion out of the N8 billion Judgment sum which he later withdrew.”
“On 7th January, 2022, he filed Suit No. FHC/MKD/CS/2/2022 with the same parties, same subject matter/issues, and sensing danger upon the service of the Applicant’s processes, he again withdrew/discontinued the Suit on 6th April, 2022,” the Committee found.
The Applicant had averred that his star witness in that suit, Jacob Gaadi, “suffered no damage in the Zaki-Biam massacre” yet sued his co-judgment creditors for N6.1 billion.
“It is noted that the Consent judgment did not distinguish how much was allocated to each of the two consolidated cases. As posited by the Applicant, the two subsequent Suits filed and withdrawn would have adversely affected what would be due to him and his clients and this exhibits lack of good faith on the part of the 1st Respondent,” the Committee held.
“Can He Then in All Honesty Aver?”
Ulegede’s central defence was that he had remained the sole counsel to the judgment creditors from inception, relying on Exhibits OPU 44 to OPU 51.
The Committee rejected it, listing the contrary evidence: that he signed the Deed of Disbursement on June 7, 2022, allotting N300,000,000 to the Applicant; that he appeared with the Applicant on August 19, 2019, before Justice Ekwo; that they appeared together at the Court of Appeal in CA/PRE/ABJ/ROM/CV/1035M/2020; and that in his own notice of withdrawal dated April 6, 2022, in Suit FHC/MKD/CS/02/22, he listed the Applicant as counsel to the 11th Defendant.
“Can he then in all honesty aver, that from inception till date, he remains the counsel to the Judgment Creditors?” the Committee asked.
It further noted his own depositions at paragraph 52 of his defence: that he informed the Applicant to attend the Tor Tiv meeting, that “he had proposed the sum of N400,000,000.00 for the Applicant as his professional fees,” that he advised the Applicant to send what he thought was his entitlement, and that he sent a message to the Tor Tiv to make additions to the sum allotted to the Applicant.
Ulegede had also averred that he signed the Deed of Disbursement “without reading it to avoid being penalised because the Federal High Court had directed that the list must be ready,” and later disowned it by disclaiming his signature.
THE FINDINGS AGAINST GADZAMA SAN
The Forged Instruction
The Committee examined Exhibit JK 2, dated May 22, 2015, on which Gadzama relied as his authority to take over Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/321/2015 and set aside the consent judgment.
“The instruction was on the letter headed paper of Benue Development Movement, a non-party to the proceedings, and it was not signed by the 3rd, 5th, 6th and 7th Judgment Creditors, while the 8th Judgment Creditor, Zaki Kaduna Mazan, was long dead when the document was purportedly signed by him. No wonder the Court of Appeal held it was forged,” the Committee found.
It established the fact of death by reference to Exhibit CA 3, the affidavit of demise deposed by his son Aper Kaduna, and found that Zaki Kaduna Mazan died on September 11, 2010, and “sought to have signed same from the grave on 22nd May, 2015.”
“He Lied”
The notice of change of counsel, Exhibit JK 1, stated: “TAKE NOTICE that the 1st to 14th Respondents/Judgment Creditors/Applicants doth hereby change their counsel on record from the law firm of Oche P. Ulegede and Co. to the law firm of J.K. Gadzama LLP.”
“The 2nd Respondent lied that he had instructions from all the Judgment Creditors and if he had any legitimate authority, he acted beyond his purported representation mandate,” the Committee held.
The Disclaimer Affidavits
The Committee set out the affidavit of the 10th Judgment Creditor, Mbayemen Masewuan, deposed July 1, 2015, describing how one Atondo Kaduna went to her village and told her that her attention was needed in Abuja because their money was about to be paid; that a vehicle was waiting at Jato-Aka to convey her together with Aper Kaduna, Mbakesen Ayatse and Anande Agashia; that on arrival in Abuja they were taken to Gadzama’s office where she did not see her lawyer; and that Patrick Twar and Ayoo Angwe, officers of the Benue Development Movement, “told her to forget about their lawyers.”
Her affidavit further recorded that she was told Gadzama “is a Senior Advocate of Nigeria” and would be paying a sum, and that Gadzama gave Patrick Twar money before they left his office.
The 3rd Judgment Creditor, Anongo Unishigh, deposed: “I and the Judgment Creditors who were made to sign our signatures on documents presented to us at the office of J.K. Gadzama, SAN on the 10th June, 2015 and 22nd June, 2015 by this affidavit now renounce the signatures for all purposes. By this affidavit and letters we are asking J.K. Gadzama, SAN and all those he uses to stay off this case.”
Another judgment creditor deposed: “The intrusion of Chief J.K. Gadzama, SAN into this matter at this stage in the way and manner done is born out of sinister motives, i.e. fraud and in utter bad faith.”
“From Exhibits OPU 44 – 49, the Judgment Creditors disclaimed the 2nd Respondent as their counsel,” the Committee found.
What the Court of Appeal Had Already Held
Relying on Rule 11(i) of the LPDC Rules, which provides that a certified judgment of any civil court “shall be conclusive proof of the facts on which the judgment is made,” the Committee adopted the findings in Exhibit 27, Orngu & Ors v. Gaadi & Ors (2016) LPELR 42083 CA.
At pages 48-49 of that ruling, the Court of Appeal held: “I agree totally with the Learned Counsel for the Respondent/Judgment 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. He has wittingly or unwittingly been goaded by unscrupulous gold diggers who are wont to exploit the unfortunate plights of the Judgment Creditors who were the actual victims of soldiers’ invasion since 2001, have found themselves resulting in some of them being maimed for life apart from the destruction of their property and loss of dear ones.”
At pages 52-53: “It was rather the Learned Senior Counsel for the Applicant who, in spite of warnings and disclaimers by the Judgment Creditors, proceeded in a manner smacking of patent breach of Rules 27(4) and 29(1) of the Rules of Professional Conduct for Legal Practitioners, hijacked a case which from inception had been commenced and completed up to Appeal and execution and without Notice to Ocha P. Ulegede Esq. of counsel for the Judgment Creditor/Respondent proceeded to file Garnishee proceedings on the promptings of Charlatans and indeed this Application which to my mind is brought in utmost bad faith.”
Two Suits, Two Sums
“While the garnishee proceeding No. FHC/ABJ/CS/321/2015 filed on 9th April, 2015 was pending in respect of the N8 billion Judgment Sum, the 2nd Respondent without being properly briefed by the Judgment Creditors proceeded to file Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/444/2015 seeking to recover the sum of N41.8 billion from the Judgment Debtors,” the Committee found.
The Appeal the Clients Withdrew Themselves
On February 14, 2017, Gadzama filed a Notice of Appeal, SC/214/2017. On December 19, 2017, the appellants themselves filed a Notice of Withdrawal stating:
“We are not aggrieved with the decision of the Court of Appeal, Enugu in motion No. CA/E/377M/2015 delivered on 23rd December, 2016. This appeal was filed without our authority. We are not interested in this appeal. We have asked J.K. Gadzama LLP to withdraw the appeal but he has refused to do so. We have asked our counsel to withdraw the appeal where J.K. Gadzama LLP who filed the appeal without our authority fails, which has been done and served on J.K. Gadzama LLP but he still filed more processes and served on our Counsel. We are compelled to withdraw the appeal ourselves and we hereby withdraw the entire appeal.”
It was signed by Peter Orngu, Amos Kaduna (son of Zaki Kaduna Mazan), Mbakesen Ayatse, Anande Agashia, Elizabeth Aonghakaa and Andrew Junta.
“The 2nd Respondent persisted, in spite of Exhibit 29, which was served on him on 10th January, 2018, and on 6th June, 2019, he filed an application seeking to amend the Notice of Appeal by moving the names of three of the Applicant’s clients to the other side as Respondents,” the Committee found.
The Exhibit JK 5 Problem
The Committee examined Exhibit JK 5, the January 27, 2017 authority, also on Benue Development Movement letterhead, signed by only six judgment creditors: Andrew Juntu, Davien Aondongu Gaadi, Elizabeth Aonghoka, Peter Orngu, Terfa Akaagba and Jabi Adula.
“From Exhibit JK 5, Amos Kaduna, Mbakesen Ayatse, Anande Agashia did not authorize the 2nd Respondent to represent them. Why then did he file Exhibit JK 6 making them Appellants, and why did he omit to feature the names of Terfa Akhagba and Jabi Adula who signed Exhibit JK 5 as Respondents in the appeal SC/214/2017?” the Committee asked.
The Signature Analysis
The Committee conducted its own examination of signatures.
“We have methodically compared the signatures of Andrew Juntu attached as Exhibit JK 8 filed before the LPPC and Exhibit JK 3 in support of the motion to set aside the consent judgment and find them identical with his signatures on Exhibit CA 4 (which also carried his photograph) and Exhibit 29, the notice of Withdrawal of appeal at the Supreme Court. We believe, this is not a mere coincidence,” it held.
“The signature of Andrew Juntu in the Terms of Disbursement attached to Exhibit 34 is irregular. Similarly, the signature of Andrew Juntu on Exhibit JK 7 is also not regular with the others. Perhaps the 2nd Respondent has some explanations to offer why the signatures of Andrew Juntu in Exhibits JK 3, JK 6 and JK 8 did not correspond with that in JK 7,” the Committee stated.
“Again, Andrew Juntu appears to be working in concert with BDM, Mathew Ayoo Angwe and Patrick Twar of the BDM who are not parties to the Suit. While certain ‘additional bundle of documents’ severally referred to in Exhibit JK 8 did not exist or were never filed.”
On Exhibit JK 9, purportedly from Elizabeth Aonghakaa: “it was not sworn to by her. It is therefore a worthless document.”
“Damning and Despicable”
“The aforesaid depositions by the 4th, 10th and 12th Judgment Creditors are, to say the least, damning and despicable. No Counsel must be seen poaching, hijacking, enticing or wrestling briefs from another counsel. We have traversed the processes and find overwhelming documentary evidence establishing the allegation of poaching and hijacking of client against the 2nd Respondent, his paragraphs 42 and 49 of the Affidavit of Defence notwithstanding,” the Committee held.
“Instead of filing counter affidavits to the disclaimer before the trial Court in Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/444/2015, he selected eight Judgment Creditors and proceeded to the Court of Appeal, Enugu Division to file motion No. CA/E/377M/2015 to have set aside the N8 billion Consent Judgment.”
“God Forbid That We See the Day”
On Justice Ekwo’s garnishee order absolute, which directed payment into an account different from that specified in the Court of Appeal consent judgment, the Committee was scathing.
“We have hierarchy of Courts and the lower Courts are bound by the doctrine of stare decisis to follow decisions of superior Courts. It is therefore strange that Ekwo J of the Federal High Court, in granting the Garnishee Order Absolute, jettisoned the clear pronouncement of the Court of Appeal where it ordered that the Judgment Sum be paid into the UBA joint account agreed upon in the Terms of Settlement,” the Committee held.
“It is even more strange and worrisome that the 2nd Respondent who happens to be a Senior Advocate of Nigeria will state that the ruling of Ekwo J is the subsisting ruling on the disbursement issue. God forbid that we see the day when the decisions of lower Courts will take precedence over those of the superior Courts in this Country,” it stated, citing Nwida & Ors v. Obelle & Ors (2021) LPELR 55953 (CA).
However: “We cannot conclude that the 2nd Respondent exerted undue influence on the Judge.”
“It Does Not Lie in His Mouth”
Gadzama had argued that Justice Agube, JCA, did not see the notice of change of counsel, hence the adverse comments.
“It does not lie in the mouth of the 2nd Respondent to state Hon. Justice Agube, JCA did not see the notice of change of counsel, hence his adverse comments about his conduct. What did the 2nd Respondent do when representation was made the issue before that Court? The truth is that the Benue Development Movement was not a party to the proceedings leading to the Consent Judgment. They therefore lack the capacity to be the channel of engagement, briefing or debriefing,” the Committee held.
“Enticing Them With Money”
“We are satisfied from Exhibit 26, paragraphs 12 to 18, that the 2nd Respondent is guilty of denigrating the Applicant’s standing and poaching his clients by enticing them with money and gradually winning some of them over, and those that still rejected him, he made Respondents,” the Committee held.
Imposed by the Tor Tiv
“Clause C of Exhibit 32 also revealed that the 2nd Respondent was imposed on the judgment creditors by the Tor Tiv. But the law is sacrosanct, that a litigant is free to engage a counsel of his choice,” the Committee held, citing Olaoluwa v. Ekedayen (2025) LPELR 81764 CA.
It also referred to the earlier principle in Abiola v. FRN (1996) LPELR 40 SC: “The best person to decide who represents him as counsel is the litigant.”
The Meeting the Applicant Was Excluded From
From Exhibit FB 3, a Debt Management Office letter to Chatham Partners, the Committee found that Rhemalaw Partners confirmed by letter of June 30, 2025, that “all counsels including J.K. Gadzama, Oche Ulegede met and agreed on the disbursement schedule.”
“Why was the Applicant not called to the meeting and why was his name not captured in the Disbursement Schedule, knowing fully well that he was a counsel in the matter?” the Committee asked, noting that under Exhibit 23, prepared by the Tiv Area Traditional Council pursuant to Justice Ekwo’s ruling, the Applicant was to receive N168,000,000, and under Exhibit 24A, which Ulegede signed, N300,000,000.
The LPPC Petition
“If the 2nd Respondent was briefed by all the Judgment Creditors, why would the 2nd, 6th, 9th and 11th Judgment Creditors write a petition against him before the Legal Practitioners Privileges Committee for his participation in Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/321/2015?” the Committee asked.
It also addressed Exhibit JK 8, the affidavit of Andrew Juntu in Gadzama’s defence before the LPPC, stating he was lured to sign an earlier document: “we take it for what it is worth in view of all that has been said.”
The Applicant’s Wider Allegations
The Applicant’s complaint also detailed the disbursement arrangements he said were made without him: that at meetings convened by the Tor Tiv in December 2021 and January 2022, “the Tor Tiv and the 1st Respondent arrogantly allocated/shared the judgment sum on paper to the extent of arbitrarily fixing his professional fees which he promptly rejected”; that Chief E.K. Ashiekaa, SAN, retainer counsel to the Tiv Area Traditional Council, offered to mediate, collected his documents, then “connived with the Tor Tiv” and was himself allotted N79 million as “mediator counsel,” a sum “higher than the cumulative sum allotted to three judgment creditors.”
He alleged that a later Deed of Disbursement dated January 24, 2023, allocated N805,000,000 to Gadzama, N75,000,000 to Vincent T. Torsugh, N30,000,000 to Pastor (Mrs) Betty Nguheman Iordaah “a complete stranger,” and N100,000,000 to himself.
He alleged that Y.U. Usman, SAN, was brought in and allocated N805,000,000 to Gadzama, who “promptly deposed to an affidavit accepting the sum allotted to him and provided his Zenith Bank account details for reception,” despite having earlier applied for a stay of the garnishee proceedings pending his Supreme Court appeal.
The 2nd Respondent’s Defence
Gadzama denied every allegation. He deposed that he was briefed by letters dated May 22, 2015, and January 27, 2017; that the judgment creditors permitted the filing of motion No. CA/E/377M/2015 and attended hearings; that on April 26, 2016, the 1st, 5th and 6th Judgment Creditors were in court and identified his firm’s counsel as their representatives.
On the Notice of Withdrawal, he deposed that Andrew Juntu filed an affidavit on November 22, 2022, verifying that he remained their counsel, and that Amos Kaduna and Mbakesen Ayatse reiterated on September 26, 2023, that they never sanctioned the withdrawal.
He denied recruiting the Tor Tiv, denied being “banished” by the Court of Appeal, denied violating any Rule, denied goading Y.U. Usman, SAN, and denied preparing or clandestinely filing any Deed of Disbursement, stating that the Deed was forwarded to the Federal High Court by Martins Ayoo Angwe and endorsed by the First Class Chiefs as directed.
“Paragraphs 78 and 79 of the Applicant’s affidavit are false as I have never made any unfair, toxic or professionally harmful comments about the Applicant to anyone as alleged. I have never used money to hijack any brief or entice any client away from his or her lawyer as alleged,” he deposed.
On the N800,000,000, he deposed that it “was his legal fees approved and communicated to him by his clients,” that he received no instruction to collect any sum meant for the Applicant, and that “if the Applicant was briefed, he knows how to recover his legal fees.”
The Sole Issue
“We formulate the following lone issue for determination: Whether, having regard to the respective affidavit evidence before us, the Applicant has established any case of professional misconduct against the 1st and 2nd Respondents,” the Committee held, noting the principle in Olagunju v. Adesoye (2009) LPELR 2555 (SC) that “the address of counsel, no matter how eloquent or brilliant, cannot take the place of evidence.”
The Definition of Misconduct
Citing Ifeogu v. LPDC (2009) LPELR 1559 SC, per Chukwuma-Eneh, JSC, the Committee restated: “Misconduct is any conduct that constitutes an infraction of acceptable standard of behaviour or ethics of the legal profession; any conduct which constitutes conduct despicable and morally reprehensible as to bring the legal profession into disrepute if condoned or unpunished, will amount to misconduct.”
On Professional Fees
“The second prayer of the Applicant is for the payment of his professional fees. We are unable to consider this or even comment on it because this is far beyond the jurisdiction of this Committee. The Applicant can make recourse to the regular Courts for issues bordering on his professional fees,” the Committee held.
THE DIRECTION
Ocha P. Ulegede was found liable of misconduct contrary to Rule 1 of the Rules of Professional Conduct for Legal Practitioners 2023, punishable under Section 12 of the Legal Practitioners Act, and suspended from the Roll and from practising law for two years from the date of the Direction.
Joe-Kyari Gadzama, SAN, was found liable of misconduct contrary to Rules 1, 27(1) and 29(1)(b) of the same Rules, punishable under Section 12, and suspended from the Roll and from the business of practising law for three years from the date of the Direction.
Publication and Notification
The Chief Registrar of the Supreme Court was directed to effect the order and make notation against both names on the Roll of Legal Practitioners.
The Committee ordered that notice be published in any edition of the PUNCH Newspaper and in the Federal Gazette; that copies be served on the President of the NBA, who is to notify the General Council of the Bar, the National Executive Committee and other organs; and that the entire judgment be brought to the attention of the Chief Justice of Nigeria, the President of the Court of Appeal, the President of the National Industrial Court, the Chief Judges of the FCT High Court, the Federal High Court and all State High Courts, the Grand Kadis and Presidents of the Customary Courts of Appeal of all States and the FCT, the Sharia and Customary Courts of all States, the heads of all other courts where a legal practitioner has audience, the Attorney-General of the Federation and all 36 State Attorneys-General, the Inspector-General of Police and all State Commissioners of Police.
Appearances
The Applicant appeared in person. O.D. Obande, Esq., with O.D. Ulegede, Esq., and S.A. Odiba, Esq., appeared for the 1st Respondent. Madu Joe Kyari-Gadzama, Esq., and Ekenne Clinton, Esq., appeared for the 2nd Respondent.
Dated at Abuja this 29th day of July, 2026.
Gadzama’s Response
In a statement issued the same day, Gadzama said he had instructed his legal team to file an immediate appeal.
“While I am yet to receive or review the certified true copy of the direction, I have instructed my legal team to file an immediate appeal,” he stated.
“The complaint against me alleged that I improperly took over another lawyer’s brief, solicited clients, and wrongfully appropriated professional fees. Those allegations are, with respect, unfounded. I was retained directly by the judgment creditors through written letters of instruction and acted throughout strictly in accordance with that professional retainer. In my respectful view, the documentary evidence before the Committee does not support the findings made against me,” he stated.
He said the complaint “fundamentally arose from a dispute concerning legal representation and professional fees” and that “the disciplinary process was not the appropriate forum for resolving such issues.”
He assured clients and the public that “upon the filing of the appeal within the time prescribed by law, my right to practise as a legal practitioner remains unaffected pending the final determination of the appeal, in accordance with the provisions of the Legal Practitioners Act.”
Interested buyers are encouraged to place their orders and enquiries via:
0704 444 4777, 0704 444 4999, 0818 199 9888
Website: www.alexandernigeria.com
The book also examines Nigeria's legal ecosystem, focusing on the LPELR and NBA AI Guidelines. As a bonus, every purchase comes with a FREE eBook titled: How to Use the AI Features in LegalPedia and LawPavilion.
Ohio Books Ltd praises the publication, stating:
"....this is the only Nigerian book I know of on the topic."
How to Order:
📞 Call, Text, or WhatsApp: 08034917063 | 07055285878
📧 Email: benadigwe1@gmail.com
🌎 Website: www.benadigwe.com
Ebook Version: Access it directly online at https://selar.com/prv626
Authored by Ben Ijeoma Adigwe Esq., ACIarb (UK), LL.M, Dip. in Artificial Intelligence, Director at the Delta State Ministry of Justice, Asaba, Nigeria.
_______________________________________________________________________
“Order Justice Omolaye-Ajileye’s Electronic Evidence Books Now” — Essential Guides On Evidence Act, Case Law And Digital Proof
