Computation Of Post-Call-Year Starts From Year Of Call: How The Court Arrived At This Interpretation

By Ebi Robert

Click here to Download the full Judgment

INTRODUCTION:

On the 2nd of April, 2019, TheNigerialawyer (TNL) made a report on the Suit between Olumide Babalola v. The Chief Registrar, Supreme Court of Nigeria, concerning the interpretation of computation of post-call-year.

In that report, TNL informed its readers that the Federal High Court on Tuesday, the same day the report was made, ruled that computation of post-call-year starts from the year of call.

The judgement relaxed the age-long debate on how to count the ”post-call-year”, of a legal practitioner in Nigeria. But what really was the ratio behind this landmark judgement, and how did the Court arrive at its decision?

A LAWYER WANTED SOMETHING:

The Applicant, Olumide Babalola, had approached the Federal High Court sitting in Abuja, for an interpretation of Section 3 (a) and Schedule of the Legal Practitioners Act & Legal Practitioners (Bar Practicing Fees) as it affects the ”Post-calls” year calculation. The case with Suit No: FHC/ABJ/CS/925/2018, was brought before His Lordship, F.O. G Ogunbajo.

The Originating Summons which was dated the 20th day of August, 2018 against the Chief Registrar of the Supreme Court of Nigeria, sought for the following questions:

1). A DECLARATION that the phrase ”Post Call”, used in the Legal Practitioners Act and Legal Practitioners (Bar Practicing Fees), Notice excludes the year of call to bar by virtue of the Applicant’s payment of practicing fees and in his year of his call to bar.

2. A PERPETUAL INJUNCTION restraining the Respondent and its officers from including or further the Applicant’s year of call in the computation of his post call years.
3. Other Consequential Order (s) as this Honourable Court may deem fit to grant in the circumstance.

The Originating Process was supported with a 14 Paragraphs affidavit deposed to by the Applicant and dated the 28th day of August, 2018. Following it was a written address filled the same day.

The Applicant raised a sole issue for determination which is:

 ”Whether or not by interpretation of the Provisions of Section 3 (a) and Schedule to the Legal Practitioners Act and Legal Practitioners (Bar Practicing Fees) Notice vis a vis the circumstances of this case, the phrase ”Post Call”, ought not be interpreted to include the Applicant’s year of call to bar.”

 In support of his position, the Applicant argued that the word, ”Post”, means ”After”, and that consequently, ”Post Call” means ”After Call”. His argued further that call years ought to be excluded in the calculation, as the same should begin from the next year after the call.

WHAT DID THE COURT SAY?

The Court in a brief but apposite remark, stated that the Applicant relied on Section 8 (3) of the Legal Practitioners Act, but neglected to consider S. 8 (2) of the LPA, preceding Section 8 (3) of the LPA. Consequently, the Applicant’s submissions based on Section 8 (3) of the LPA are misconceived and misguided.

The Court further held that giving the Provision it’s ordinary meaning, the minute a person is called to the bar, irrespective of the month he is called, he must pay practicing fee for that year in which he was called to bar in line with the Provisions of S. 8 (2) of the LPA.

”The implication of the erroneous submission made by the Applicant is that if a person is called to bar in the middle months of the year like June or July or even in the later months of the year, if he fails to pay practicing fees for that year he was called to bar, that person will be unable to practice law in that year he was called to bar until the next year after the year he was called to bar, having paid the practicing fee for the year he was called to bar.”

WHAT MORE?

The Court didn’t take a breath to state that it appears the purpose, meaning and intention of Section  8 (2) of the LPA is lost on the Applicant, stressing that the application filed the Applicant is a display of the Applicant’s lack of understanding of the LPA, particularly, Section 8 even when all that is needed is literal and ordinary meaning of the wordings of the Act.

Ratio: ”The purpose, meaning and intention of Section 8 (2) if the LPA is that the moment a person is called to bar, his ” Post Call” year begins to count from that year he was called and the person must pay practicing fee for that year he was called to bar”.

CONCLUSION:

The highpoint is clear and unambiguous. If you were called in the year 2018, you are already two year at the bar. The Law is now a settled one. The Court sees no reason to deviate from the calculation employed by the Chief Registrar all these years. It’s one cap for Olumide Babalola Esq.; his quest to get a clarification on this part of the law has settled the issue of computation of post call years, once and for all. Is this not a part for others to follow? Certainly, it is.