*Adjourned To 4 September For Hearing Subject To Service On The Respondents
![](https://thenigerialawyer.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/ELLAN.png")
![](https://thenigerialawyer.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/2026-Summer-IDRI-Masterclass.jpg")
The Federal High Court sitting in Abuja has granted leave to Joe-Kyari Gadzama, SAN, to apply for judicial review and to seek an order of certiorari quashing a Direction of the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee delivered on 29 July 2026.
The order was made on Thursday, 20 August 2026 by Hon. Justice Obiora-Atuegwu Egwuatu in Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/1954/2026.
The applicant is Joe-Kyari Gadzama, SAN. The defendants are the Body of Benchers, the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee, the Chief Registrar of the Supreme Court, Chris Alashi, Esq., and Ocha P. Ulegede, Esq.
The enrolled order records that the motion ex parte was dated 18 August and filed on 19 August 2026, and came before the court on 20 August.
The applicant sought an order granting him leave to apply for judicial review and to seek an order of certiorari “removing into this Honourable Court and quashing the Direction of the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee in complaint no. BB/LPDC/1314/2024 (Chris Alashi, Esq. v Ocha P. Ulegede, Esq. & Anor) delivered on 29 July 2026,” in terms of the accompanying Statement pursuant to Order 34 of the Federal High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules.
He also sought such further order or orders as the court might deem fit.
The order records that the court read a verifying affidavit of forty-five paragraphs deposed to by the applicant, described as a Nigerian, male, adult, legal practitioner and Founding Principal Partner of J-K Gadzama LLP, Abuja, and filed at the registry of the court.
The court heard M.E. Oru, SAN, counsel for the applicant, who argued the application and urged the court to grant the reliefs sought.
The order notes that the court delivered its ruling in open court, and that its reasoning and conclusions are contained in the body of the ruling.
The court ordered as follows:
That leave is granted to the applicant to apply for judicial review and to seek an order of certiorari removing into the court and quashing the Direction of the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee in the complaint, in terms of the accompanying Statement pursuant to Order 34 of the Federal High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules.
That the application shall be filed within seven days from 20 August 2026.
The matter was adjourned to 4 September 2026 for hearing, subject to service of the motion on the respondents.
The order was issued at Abuja under the seal of the court and the hand of the presiding judge, and signed by the Registrar, Micheal Akpiri.
The order made is a grant of leave, and it should not be read as any determination on the merits. Under Order 34 of the Federal High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, an applicant for judicial review must first obtain the court’s leave, and the threshold at that stage is whether the material discloses an arguable case fit for further consideration. Leave is a filter, not a finding, and the respondents have not yet been heard.
What has been granted is the right to proceed to the substantive application, which must be filed within seven days and served before the hearing date. Certiorari, the remedy sought, is a prerogative order by which the High Court calls up the record of an inferior tribunal or body exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions and quashes its decision where it is shown to be affected by want or excess of jurisdiction, breach of the rules of natural justice, or error of law on the face of the record. It does not permit the court to substitute its own view of the merits for that of the tribunal.
The Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee is established under the Legal Practitioners Act to hear complaints of professional misconduct against legal practitioners, and it makes “Directions” rather than judgments. Its Directions are ordinarily challenged by appeal to the Supreme Court under Section 12(7) of the Act, which provides a route to a practitioner aggrieved by a Direction. That gives rise to a question the respondents may well raise at the hearing: whether judicial review lies at all where the statute provides a specific appellate remedy, since the prerogative orders are ordinarily residual and unavailable where an adequate alternative remedy exists.
There is a further jurisdictional question. Whether the Federal High Court is the proper venue for review of a Committee constituted under the Legal Practitioners Act, and whether the Body of Benchers and the Committee are federal agencies within Section 251 of the Constitution, are matters that have been litigated before and are likely to be argued again. The joinder of the Chief Registrar of the Supreme Court as a defendant is itself notable, and suggests that the applicant’s complaint touches the transmission or entry of the Direction.
Nothing in the enrolled order discloses the substance of the Direction or the applicant’s connection to a complaint in which he is not named as a party. The complaint is recorded as Chris Alashi, Esq. v. Ocha P. Ulegede, Esq. & Anor, and the applicant appears as neither complainant nor named respondent on the face of the order. His standing, and the basis on which the Direction affects him, will therefore be among the first matters for the court at the hearing.
Editorial notes: This report is drawn from the enrolled order alone. The order records that the court’s reasoning is contained in the body of the ruling, which has not been supplied, so the grounds on which leave was granted are not known and should not be inferred. Obtain the Certified True Copy of the ruling and of the Statement filed under Order 34 before reporting the applicant’s grounds or the substance of the Direction. Seek comment from the Body of Benchers, the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee and the individual respondents, and note that none of them has been heard at this stage.
Interested buyers are encouraged to place their orders and enquiries via:
0704 444 4777, 0704 444 4999, 0818 199 9888
Website: www.alexandernigeria.com
“Order Justice Omolaye-Ajileye’s Electronic Evidence Books Now” — Essential Guides On Evidence Act, Case Law And Digital Proof
