Alleged Infamous Conduct: J.K Gadzama, SAN Replies Application To Strike Out His Name From Roll, Says Unknown To Law, Strange, Harassing & Annoying

Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Mr. J.K Gadzama has replied to the application filed before the Supreme Court of Nigeria seeking to strike out his name from the Roll of Legal Practitioners in Nigeria for alleged infamous conduct.

This is contained in his “Respondent Counter Affidavit to the Originating Motion filed 30th April, 2020  before the Supreme Court of Nigeria in Suit No: SC/632/2019, which was made available to TheNigeriaLawyer(TNL).

The learned silk noted that “this application is an abuse of Court process, is strange, unknown to Law and Law practice and intended only to harass and annoy”.

Meanwhile, he stated that having read the Applicant’s affidavit deposed to by Onyechi Egwuonwu, Esq., some of the averments contained therein are false.

In paragraph six of the counter affidavit, he stated that around September, 2017 he was introduced to the Applicant by Mr. Johnny Egwuonwu, SAN who once worked in their office and who happens to be a relative to the Applicant.

He stated that the Applicant informed him of the effort to recover a judgement and requested him to lead the legal team of Petrol Union in which he requested a letter. Thus, the letter was dated 18th day of September, 2017 which he accepted vide a letter of engagement dated 20th day of September, 2017.

Furthermore, in paragraph 8 of the counter, he noted that he requested an official letter of engagement from Petrol Union in order to confirm that he was actually engaged and same was issued on 17th day of February, 2018. He denied inducing the company to issue a letter of engagement stating that it was done based on their own volition.

“Our engagement was not only to conduct proceedings in the Court of Appeal but to lead the entire recovery efforts.” He said.

Besides, he admitted that they wrote a letter to the CBN requesting payment into his firm’s client account. He also stated that contrary to the assertion of the Applicant, no communication was received from the CBN or its staff.

He stated that contrary to the assertions of the Applicant, he makes no admission of wrongdoing vide any letter.

“At the time of our engagement, the applicant had already filed briefs of argument on behalf of Petrol Union in both appeals. We thus set about reviewing the briefs with a view to enhancing them where necessary.”

“The claim in paragraph 20 of the supporting affidavit that we did not review the brief filed by the applicant in appeal no. CA/A/258/2014 is false. We reviewed the brief but made no decision to amend it.”

In addition, it was further stated that a letter issued by the Applicant unilaterally (Exhibit OE 12) was denied by the company.

Meanwhile, he stated that the Applicant lodged several petitions against him and that he was undisturbed by them because he had always acted in line with professional standard of ethics.

In addition, he said:

“Paragraph 35 of the supporting affidavit is false. The decision to debrief the applicant was made by Petrol Union through its principal officers. Neither I nor any person on my behalf instigated the debriefing of the applicant.

“Give the nuisance that the applicant had begun to constitute through his endless stream of repetitive correspondence and petitions, we made the decision to withdraw from representing Petrol Union.

“By a letter dated 24th March, 2020 we notified Petrol Union of our decision to withdraw.”

In another development, he noted that he has never been indicted by the Court of Appeal in Peter Orgnu v. Dr. Alex Gaadi (CA/E/377M/15) and that the obiter of Per AGUBE JCA was made erroneously and per incuriam.

He stated that there was a notice of change of counsel which does not form part of the record of the Court. This is because the notice of change of counsel was filed in separate garnishee proceedings before the Federal High Court. “As such, the notice of change of counsel does not form part of the record of the Court of Appeal.”

“The comments of Agube JCA…suggesting that our firm took over a case without due process were made obiter and were factually incorrect. In reality, we had filed a notice of change of counsel and which did not come to the attention of the Hon. Justice of Court of Appeal because he made those statements per incuriam without hearing or requesting to hear our own side of the story.”

“The decision of the Court of Appeal   (CA/E/377M/15) has been appealed and is currently before the Supreme Court as appeal no. SC/214/2014”.