*Holds No Direct Appeal Lies From LPDC to the Apex Court
![](https://thenigerialawyer.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/ELLAN.png")
![](https://thenigerialawyer.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/2026-Summer-IDRI-Masterclass.jpg")
The Supreme Court of Nigeria has settled with finality the long-contested question of whether an appeal lies directly from the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee to the apex court, holding that it does not, that Section 12(7) of the Legal Practitioners Act is void to the extent of its inconsistency with the Constitution, and departing from its own earlier decision in Okike v. LPDC (2005) 3-4 SC 49, which had recognised such a right of direct appeal.
The judgment was delivered on Friday, June 26, 2026, in SC/481/2018, Ben Mene-Ejegi Esq. v. Nigerian Bar Association & Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee, by a panel comprising Justices Tijjani Abubakar, Emmanuel Akomaye Agim, Obande Festus Ogbuinya, Habeeb Adewale O. Abiru and Mohammed Baba Idris, JSC, with the lead judgment delivered by Justice Mohammed Baba Idris, JSC.
The appellant, a legal practitioner practising in Warri, was arraigned before the LPDC on a two-count complaint dated October 20, 2016, alleging that in October 2015 he received N1,600,000 from one Mr Tosan Olukpe by false pretence as the purchase price for land at Ajah-Etan Close, Warri, which did not belong to him, and that he refused to refund the sum despite repeated demands, contrary to Rule 1 of the Rules of Professional Conduct for Legal Practitioners 2007 and punishable under Section 12(1) of the Legal Practitioners Act.
According to the petition, the petitioner had in 2010 purchased land in Warri from one Mr Akuya, and met the appellant during the execution of the Deed of Conveyance, which the appellant prepared. The appellant subsequently showed the petitioner a fish pond and other parcels of land at Ajah-Etan Close, which he represented as belonging to him and available for sale. The petitioner paid N1,600,000, and the appellant acknowledged receipt on his law firm’s letterhead.
When the petitioner attempted to develop the land, he was told the appellant was not the owner and was forcibly ejected. He demanded a refund. The appellant instead offered an alternative parcel, which the petitioner rejected.
The petitioner reported to the Nigeria Police Force and the NBA, which found a prima facie case of professional misconduct.
In his defence, the appellant contended that he had told the petitioner the land was family land still undergoing survey and not yet fully available for sale, that the petitioner paid despite that disclosure, that the transaction was disrupted when the family reclaimed the land, that he offered alternative land which was refused, and that he was not accorded fair hearing during the NBA investigation. He admitted that N150,000 had been refunded to the petitioner by members of his family.
On March 22, 2018, the LPDC found both counts proved, held the appellant liable for infamous conduct in a professional sense, directed the Chief Registrar of the Supreme Court to strike his name off the Roll of Legal Practitioners, and ordered him to refund the N1,600,000 to the petitioner through the NBA within thirty days.
The Original Ground of Appeal
The appellant appealed by Notice of Appeal dated April 16, 2018, on a single issue: whether the LPDC panel that tried him was properly constituted.
His counsel, Frederick O. Olokor, Esq., argued that the Committee was improperly constituted contrary to Sections 10(1) and 10(2)(a)-(c) of the Legal Practitioners Act, that the applicable law at the time required the Attorney-General of the Federation to serve as Chairman, that the panel was instead headed by a private legal practitioner, and that the membership of the panel varied throughout the proceedings with some members who did not hear the evidence participating in the final decision. He relied on Muyideen v. NBA (2012) ALL FWLR (Pt. 111) 516.
The NBA, through Yakubu S. Bawa, Esq., responded that by Section 10(3) of the Act and paragraph 6 of the Second Schedule, proceedings are not invalidated by irregularity in the appointment of members, that the presence of the Chairman and requisite quorum at each sitting satisfied the law, and that the appellant failed to demonstrate any miscarriage of justice, relying on Ndukwe v. LPDC & Anor (2007) LPELR-1978 (SC).
Why the Court Raised Jurisdiction Suo Motu
Justice Idris explained that the Court raised the jurisdictional question on its own motion because of its earlier decision in Osuji v. LPDC (2025) 17 NWLR (Pt. 2014) 317, delivered on July 4, 2025, in which it held that an appeal does not lie directly from the LPDC to the Supreme Court.
“Following that decision, considerable debate and divergent opinions emerged within the legal community, including amongst members of the Nigerian Bar Association, the Body of Senior Advocates of Nigeria, and the Body of Benchers. In view of the significance of the issue and its far-reaching implications for the legal profession and the administration of justice, this Court considered it appropriate that the question be revisited at the earliest opportunity in order to settle the law with finality,” the Court stated.
By letter dated April 8, 2026, counsel for all parties were invited to file supplementary briefs specifically on the jurisdictional question. All three, the appellant, the NBA and the LPDC, filed briefs arguing that the Court did have jurisdiction, relying on the Legal Practitioners (Amendment) Decree No. 21 of 1994, Okike v. LPDC, Akintokun v. LPDC (2014) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1423) 1, and Nwalutu v. NBA (2019) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1673) 174.
A Rebuke for Counsel
The Court noted with evident dissatisfaction that despite the invitation, “no substantial submissions were made concerning the constitutional implications of Section 12(7) of the Legal Practitioners Act or its compatibility with the appellate jurisdiction vested in this Court by the Constitution.”
“It is trite that counsel owe a duty not only to their clients but also to the Court, as ministers in the temple of justice, to assist in the proper administration of justice by placing before the Court all relevant arguments, authorities and considerations necessary for the determination of issues arising for adjudication. Where, therefore, a court invites addresses on a specific issue and counsel elect, for whatever reason, not to canvass all available arguments thereon, the consequences of such omission cannot be visited upon the Court,” the Court held.
“The constitutional requirement of fair hearing is satisfied once parties are afforded a reasonable and adequate opportunity to present their case. It does not impose an obligation on the Court to ensure that such opportunity is fully utilised or exhaustively exploited by the parties,” it added.
The Constitutional Analysis
The Court began from first principles: “Jurisdiction is the lifeblood of adjudication. Consequently, where a court embarks upon proceedings in the absence of jurisdiction, such proceedings, no matter how meticulously conducted or elegantly reasoned, are a nullity, for one cannot place something on nothing and expect it to stand.”
It set out Section 232, which deals exclusively with original jurisdiction and expressly permits the National Assembly to confer additional original jurisdiction, and Section 233, which governs appellate jurisdiction.
“The language of subsection (1) is unequivocal. It vests in this Court jurisdiction, to the exclusion of any other court of law in Nigeria, to hear and determine appeals from the Court of Appeal. A careful and dispassionate reading of these provisions leaves no room for doubt that the appellate jurisdiction of this Court is confined, strictly and exclusively, to appeals emanating from the Court of Appeal. No other court, tribunal, or body is contemplated by the Constitution as a source of appeals directly to this Court,” the Court held.
The Contrast With Section 240
The Court then placed Section 233 alongside Section 240, which governs the appellate jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal.
“While the appellate jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal is expressly made subject to the provisions of the Constitution and extends to appeals from the courts and tribunals specifically enumerated therein, as well as such other courts or tribunals as may be prescribed by an Act of the National Assembly, the provision relating to the Supreme Court is distinctly and more restrictively couched,” the Court held.
“The Constitution clearly contemplates a broader and more flexible appellate jurisdiction for the Court of Appeal, capable of statutory expansion, whereas the appellate jurisdiction of this Court is rigidly confined to appeals emanating from the Court of Appeal alone, with no corresponding constitutional allowance for enlargement by legislative intervention,” it stated.
Citing Karibi-Whyte, JSC, in AG Oyo State & Anor v. Fairlakes Hotel Ltd (1988) LPELR-24926 (SC), the Court concluded: “The omission is neither accidental nor inadvertent; it is deliberate, significant, and must be accorded its full constitutional effect. It is a settled canon of constitutional interpretation that the express mention of one thing implies the exclusion of others not mentioned, expressio unius est exclusio alterius.”
Section 12(7) Is Void to the Extent of Its Inconsistency
The Court acknowledged that Item 49 of the Exclusive Legislative List brings professional occupations within the National Assembly’s competence, and that Items 67 and 68 extend to incidental matters including the jurisdiction, powers, practice and procedure of courts.
“However, these legislative powers, wide as they may appear, are not at large. They are circumscribed and controlled by the supremacy of the Constitution,” the Court held, citing INEC v. Musa (2003) LPELR-24927 (SC).
“It follows, therefore, that any statutory provision, including Section 12(7) of the Legal Practitioners Act, which purports to confer a right of direct appeal from the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee to this Court, must yield to the supremacy of the Constitution. By virtue of Section 1(3) of the Constitution, such a provision is null and void to the extent of its inconsistency,” the Court held.
Departing From Okike
The Court addressed Okike v. LPDC directly, noting that the panel in that case had itself observed that Section 233(1) contains no provision equivalent to Section 232(2) permitting legislative expansion, yet nonetheless assumed jurisdiction.
“With profound respect to the eminent Justices who constituted the panel in Okike v. LPDC, the constitutional implications of Sections 233(1) and 240 of the Constitution were not examined against the backdrop of the settled principles governing constitutional interpretation. The constitutional architecture regulating appeals to this Court was not construed as a whole. Had the relevant provisions been considered together and in accordance with the established canons of constitutional interpretation, the conclusion reached may well have been different,” the Court held.
“The Law Is Not a Fossil Preserved in the Museum of Antiquity”
On stare decisis, the Court affirmed the doctrine while explaining why it must yield here.
“The law is not a fossil preserved in the museum of antiquity. It is a living and dynamic instrument designed to regulate an ever-changing society,” the Court stated, invoking Lord Denning in Packer v. Packer (1954) 2 All ER 127, that “if we never do anything which has not been done before, we shall never get anywhere. The law will stand still whilst the rest of the world goes on; and that will be bad for both,” and Roscoe Pound’s observation that “law must be stable and yet it cannot stand still.”
“While this Court remains committed to the doctrine of stare decisis, it cannot permit fidelity to precedent to override fidelity to the Constitution. Where an earlier decision is shown to be inconsistent with the Constitution, the demands of constitutional supremacy outweigh the demands of precedent. The Constitution is immutable only in its supremacy; judicial interpretation must remain responsive to its true meaning whenever that meaning is called into question,” the Court held.
No Invitation From Counsel Required
The Court also addressed whether its power to depart from precedent depends on being invited to do so.
It noted that the requirement under Order 6 Rule 5(4) of the Supreme Court Rules 2014, that a party seeking a departure must expressly notify the Court, does not appear in the Supreme Court Rules 2024.
“The omission is not without significance. It underscores the fact that the power of this Court to revisit and, where necessary, depart from its previous decisions is not dependent upon an invitation by counsel. Rather, it inheres in the constitutional status of this Court as the final judicial authority in the Federation. The authority to depart from an erroneous precedent resides in the Court itself and not in the parties,” the Court held.
“To hold otherwise would mean that this Court, having become aware of a constitutional error in one of its previous decisions, must nevertheless perpetuate the error merely because counsel failed to draw its attention thereto. Such a proposition is wholly untenable. Indeed, the judicial oath administered to every Justice of this Court requires fidelity to the Constitution above all else,” it stated.
The Holding
“Having carefully considered their submissions and undertaken a fresh examination of the relevant constitutional provisions, I am satisfied that the decision in Okike v. LPDC, to the extent that it recognised a direct right of appeal from the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee to this Court, cannot be reconciled with the clear provisions of Sections 233 and 240 of the Constitution,” the Court held.
“The Constitution vests this Court with appellate jurisdiction principally over decisions of the Court of Appeal and does not constitute it as a court of direct appellate review over bodies exercising original jurisdiction, save in respect of decisions of the Court of Appeal rendered in the exercise of its original jurisdiction pursuant to Section 239 of the Constitution. The appellate structure established by the Constitution is deliberate, hierarchical and exhaustive,” the Court declared.
The appeal was accordingly held to be incompetent and struck out.
The decision resolves a question that had generated intense debate across the profession since Osuji v. LPDC in July 2025, and it does so in terms that leave no room for further argument at the level of the apex court.
The practical consequence is that legal practitioners aggrieved by a direction of the LPDC, including directions striking a name off the Roll or suspending a practitioner from practice, can no longer appeal directly to the Supreme Court under Section 12(7) of the Legal Practitioners Act. That provision has now been declared void to the extent of its inconsistency with the Constitution.
The judgment also carries immediate significance for practitioners currently facing or contemplating LPDC proceedings, and for those who have recently announced an intention to appeal directly to the Supreme Court against LPDC directions.
Appearances
P. Akpavie, Esq., appeared for the Appellant. Y.S. Bawa, Esq., appeared for the 1st Respondent, the Nigerian Bar Association. M. Adjeh, Esq., appeared for the 2nd Respondent, the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee.
The judgment was delivered on June 26, 2026, in SC/481/2018 by Hon. Justice Mohammed Baba Idris, JSC.
“Order Justice Omolaye-Ajileye’s Electronic Evidence Books Now” — Essential Guides On Evidence Act, Case Law And Digital Proof
[A MUST HAVE] Evidence Act Demystified With Recent And Contemporary Cases And Materials
Available now for NGN 40,000 at ASC Publications, 10, Boyle Street, Onikan, Lagos. Beside High Court, TBS. Email publications@ayindesanni.com or WhatsApp +2347056667384. Purchase Link: https://paystack.com/buy/evidence-act-complete-annotation
______________________________________________________________________ “Enhance Legal Practice With Authoritative Reports” — Alexander Payne Offers Comprehensive Law Reports, Spanning Over A Century Of Nigerian Jurisprudence
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.
