NBA V JIDE ALADEJOBI ESQ

IN THE LEGAL PRACTITIONERS DISCIPLINARY
COMMITTEE OF THE BODY OF BENCHERS HOLDEN AT
ABUJA ON APRIL 21, 2008.

SUIT NO: BB/DCNB/057

BEFORE:
1. HON. JUSTICE UMARU ERI OFR, CJK - CHAIRMAN
2. HON. JUSTICE R.D. MOHAMMED P. JCA MEMBER
3. HON. JUSTICE Z.A. BULKACHUWA P.CJA MEMBER
4. HON. JUSTICE ABDU ABOKI JCA MEMBER
5. HON. JUSTICE KULU ALIYU, CJ, ZAMFARA MEMBER
6. CHIEF OMORUYI A. 0 SAN AG EDO MEMBER
7. CHIEF A.S. AWOMOLO, SAN MEMBER
8. CHIEF N. NWANODI, SAN MEMBER

BETWEEN:
NIGERIAN BAR ASSOCIATION -- COMPLAINT
AND
JIDE ALADEJOBI, ESQ. - - RESPONDENT

DIRECTION

The complaint against the Respondent is that "as counsel to Alhaji Saliu Gbolagade on about the year 2001, conspired with the said Alhaji Saliu Gbolagade to draft and execute a. 10 year Lease Agreement purportedly on behalf of Mrs. Victoria Akinyele Aliu (the Petitioner) in respect of the Petitioner's property situated at No 52, Western Avenue, Surulere, Lagos with the intent to interfere with the Petitioners ownership rights over property, all contrary to Rules 24, 28 and 49 (a) and (b) of the Rules of professional conduct in the legal profession and section 12 of the legal professional's Act, 1990 as amended." The above complaint was read to the

2. The complaint of professional rnisconduct against the Respondent was made to the Nigeria Bar Association in the Petition of Mrs. Victoria Akinyele Aliu through her solicitor Mr. Mike Umonnan and was dated 1st Dec., 2003. By a letter dated 6th Jan., 2004, the NBA Disciplinary Committee sent a copy of the Petition to the NBA disciplinary committee sent a copy of the petition to the respondent but the respondent refused to react. Thus, the only material available to the NBA Disciplanary Committee for consideration was the petition by Petitioner presented through her Attorney.

3. The first witness for the Petition was the Secretary to the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee Abubakar Umar Maidama. On the 16th Jan. 2008 he gave evidence as to the receipt of a letter dated 16th March, 2005 from the NBA forwarding a report against the Respondent stating inter alia that a prima facie case of professional misconduct has been made against the Respondent in terms of the supporting documents forwarded with the said letter, the letter and the bundle of documents forwarded with it was marked Exhibit A1 - A45. Among the documents in the Exhibit are letters calling upon the Respondent to give his reaction to the petition the first letter is dated January, 2004 (Exhibit A4) and 18th June 2004 (Exhibit A2) the Petition. The witness concluded his testimony with the statement of fact that from the records in his possession, there was no reaction whatsoever from the Respondent.

4. The second witness for the petition was the lawful Attorney of the Petitioner. Mr. Mike Umonnan exhibited his power of Attorney which was admitted in evidence as Exhibit B. The witness was instructed and granted a power of Attorney to give evidence in respect of the case between the NBA and Jide Aladejobi currently before "the. Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee, Abuja.

5. Mr. Umonnan's evidence was in line with the petition prepared by him for Mrs Victoria Akinyele Aliu and which he had forwarded to the NBA Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee on 1st Dec. 2003. That petition is part of the bundle of papers admitted in evidence in this matter through the 1st witness and marked Exhibit A8. His evidence showed that sometime in 1997 one Alhaji Gbolagade who was a tenant at the property known as 52, Western Avenue, Surulere, Lagos approached the landlady of the said property Mrs. Victoria Akinyele Aliu and offered to assist her to eject earring tenants in the said property and bring in new ones following the agreement Alhaji Gbolagade took the petitioner to the Respondent who prepared the agreement to govern the relationship between the petitioner and Alhaji Gbolagade. That agreement signed by both parties is in evidence in this matter as Exhibit A12.

6. Sometime in the year 2002 and based on the information which the Petitioner received about her said property, she had to brief counsel Messrs Abimbola Isikalu & Company to write to Alhaji Gbolagade protesting about the plan by the said. Alhaji Gbolagade to sell all the property. What the Petitioner received in reply was a letter from the Respondent acting as counsel to the said Alhaji Gbolagade stating inter alia as follows:-

ALADEJOB1 & ALADEJOB1 &CO
Dated 8th May 2002
Abimbola Isikalu & Co.
Solicitors & Advocates,
60 Toyin Street, Ikeja Lagos.
Attention Abimbola Isikalu Esq.

Dear colleague,

RE: BUILDING SITUATE NO.9A, WESTERN AVENUE, SURULERE, LAGOS.
We write as solicitors to and on behalf of Alhaji Saliu Gbogalade of No 9A, Western Avenue, Surulere, Lagos. Yours dated 3rd May, 2002 and titled as above addressed to our client has been referred to us for necessary action. Permit us to state with respect the content of your letter was informed most likely by the fact that your client did not reveal facts very material to the transaction between herself and our client to you.
The brief gist of the matter is that our chambers undertook a couple of years back the recovery of the premises in question from the tenants and in consideration of the renovation/repairs carried out by our client ten year lease (copy enclosed) was executed in his favour with the expiration being 28 February, 2011.

We are therefore to assure you that our client has no intention whatsoever of alienating your client reversion as to do that would be illegal.
Meanwhile, we shall cause a letter to be written to all tenants informing them of the true position.

Yours faithfully,
For: ALADEJOBI & ALADEJOB1 &CO
Jide Aladejobi.
The document copy of which was said to be enclosed is in evidence as Exhibits A15, A16 and A17. Upon receipt of the said documents, the Petitioner had to request the Commissioner of Police, Lagos State to investigate the matter. As a sequel to these reports, criminal proceedings are pending in the High Court of Lagos State, Ikeja Division. The case of forgery of the Deed of lease is against the respondent and Alhaji Gbolagade and both were supposed to open their defence on 30th and 31st Jan. 2008 having failed in their no case submission.

According to the Petitioner, she never instructed anybody to sell her property neither did she set her hand to the document as was purported to be the case in Exhibit A15 to A17. The witness concluded his evidence as follows:-
"Consequent upon the forged documents Exhibits A27 to A30, the respondent’s clients Alhaji Gbolagade, assignee on the deed collected rents from many tenants with a view to leasing the property to them. After that, the assignee, Gbolagade prevented the petitioner from having access to (the Premises) which resulted in the collapse of some parts of the property. The Lagos State Urban and Reqional Board served several notices stating that the property would be demolished which were collected by Alhaji Gbolagade but were never served on (the petitioner). On 29/9/2003, the property was demolished by the Lagos State Urban and Regional Planning Board. It was when it was demolished that the Petitioner became aware. The Petitioner suffered loses. The property was even leased out and rents collected."

That was the case for the Petitioner.
The Respondent appeared for himself and opened and closed his defence on 14th March, 2008 by reason of the nature of the defence raised by the Respondent, a mere summary of his evidence will not suffice to show fairness to his case. His entire evidence both in-chief and in cross-examination is hereafter reproduced.

My names are Babajide Aladejobi. I am a Legal Practitioner. I was called to Bar 11th October 1987. I practice at NO. 53, Western Avenue, Ojuelegba Lagos, In 1997 the complainant Mrs. Victoria Adun Aliu was brought to my Chamber by one Alh. Saliu Gbolagade. Alh. Gbolagade informed me that the complainant had a property at No. 62, Western Avenue. I was informed that tenants there had been living rent free over the years and that Alh. Gbolagade as an estate agent was to be given the assignment of filing the ejection process through the Court of Law. When I found that parties were aggrieved, that is Alh. Gbolagade and the Complainant, I advised that a power of Attorney be donated by the complainant to Alh. Gbolagade. I was instructed to prepare the power of Attorney which I did and the complainant signed. Armed with the power of Attorney Alh. Gbolagade instructed me to take out ejection proceedings against all the tenants at the Surulere Rent Tribunal. Alh. Gbolagade paid my fees as a result of which 1 took out writ against all the tenants. The proceeding lasted for the 3 years in the course of which the complainant was invited to give evidence. About the year 2000, we succeeded in ejecting all the tenants from the premises after which Alh. Gbolagade paid the balance of my fees. Towards the end of 2000, Alh.
Gbolagade returned to my chambers to inform me that he had agreed with the complainant to have the property re-structured and renovated so as to have it attract a commercial higher value. 1 inquired as to whose expenses the renovation was to be carried out and Alh. Gbolagade informed me that it was to be at his own expenses and the developer in, consideration of a grant to him of a lease in and over the said property for a period of 10 years. 1 then counseled that such an agreement should be in writing. He sought for time to consult with the complainant over my advice. He came back after a month to say that the complainant had agreed.
COMMITTEE - Copy of the lease is admitted as Exhibit R2.
Cross examination by Ameh - I see Exhibit A2 and A5. I received the Exhibits and I responded accordingly. Exhibit A2 read. From the content of Exhibit A2, my response was not received. 1 do not have any proof to show that my response was received within 14 days. I have seen Exhibit A12 and A13. A12 and A13 was prepared by me as I testified in Chief. I said before that Exhibit A13 was signed by the petitioner but not in my presence. I am the maker of Exhibit A14. Exhibit A15 - A16 is not a copy enclosed as referred to in my letter Exhibit A14. Exhibit A15 - A16 was a copy which was signed by the complainant and it was not witnessed and I cannot say if stamp duty was paid because that was not part of the job given to my chambers. Exhibit A29 -A30 is the copy I attached to my letter Exhibit A14. I see Exhibit A27 - A28 and A29 - A31 and the features, stamp duties appear to be the same. 1 agree that stamp duties are paid after parties have signed. On Exhibit A30, the witness signature was done in my presence, on 1/03/2001. I do not recall that it was not back dated. I believe it was signed on that date. The building has been pulled down. It was the subject of accusation between the complainant and the contractor. It was pulled down by the Lagos Renewal Board because the renovation was unauthorised. As at 2004 my office was operating at both No. 53, Western Avenue, but also retained a correspondence office at No. 27, Adegbite Street, Ilasamaja, Lagos. I started operating at No. 53, Western Avenue at about 1998. Linda stopped working with me may be late 2001 or early 2002. I am not precise. Miss Joy Amadu was also my clerk but she left around 2005 or 2006. Right now I am standing trial before the Lagos High Court.

The Respondents filed a written address dated 26th March, 2008. At the close of the introductory paragraph to his address, he put in issue that the petitioner never gave the pledge in the closing paragraph of the petition to substantiate the allegations therein if called upon and proceeded to add that she was never called upon to do so. It has never been the law that the complainant under Rules governing the proceedings of the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee must be the actual person offended, or cheated. It is immaterial whether the complainant, as is in this case, is the Donee of a Power of Attorney. See the contribution of Uwais CJN in the decision in OKIKE vs. LPDC (2005) 15NWLR (Part) 949 Pp 471 -550 at Pp 5l7 - 518. In what follows, I shall deal serially with the issues raised in the Respondents address as incontrovertible facts.

Fact (a) Respondents stated that the allegedly forged lease does not have the slightest connection with the Respondent beyond the fact that it was drafted by counsel in his chambers - one Princess Medina Titi Aladejobi (Mrs). This allegation is contrary to the tenor of Exhibit A14 which was made and authorised by the Respondent under the name and style of Aladejobi & Aladejobi & Co. A paragraph in the said letter dated 5th May 2002 read as follows: "The brief gist of the matter is that our chambers undertook a couple of years back the recovery of the princess in question from tenants and in consideration of the renovation/repairs carried out by our client, a ten year lease (copy enclosed) was executed in his favour with the expiration being 28th Feb., 2011

The Respondent himself signed that letter. It was he who enclosed in that letter to the petitioner exhibits A15, A16, A17 which constitute the forged documents in question. The Respondent also admitted that Exhibits A29 - A30 is the copy he attached to exhibit A14. The adoption of Exhibit A15 -A17 and by implication Exhibit A29 - A30 as his own act by reason of Exhibit 14 puts the connection between the Respondent and those exhibits beyond the fact of their being drafted by counsel in the chambers of the Respondent. He has made himself sufficiently connected to the allegedly forged documents as a principal source of their existence and by implication sufficiently connected to their origin and therefore answerable for any badges of deformity which they carry.

Fact (b) The Respondent also further alleged that at the Lagos State High court before Gbajabiamila J., the Petitioner never made the faintest allegation that the alleged forgery of the lease in question had any connection with the Respondent. He put in evidence in proof of this position, a certified true copy of the evidence of the Petitioner in the case of the State vs. Alhaii Saliu A. Gbolagade and Anor. before the Lagos High Court on 28th September, 2006. This document was admitted in evidence -in- Chief as Exhibit R1. At pages 2 and 3 of the said exhibit, the Petitioner in the course of her evidence stated as follows in continuation other evidence:

"The 1st accused responded to my lawyer. The 1st accused responded saying the property now belongs to him and not PW1 (sic the Petitioner). The lawyer gave a copy of the 1st accused letter but it is not with me now. I cannot find the original copy of the same. This is the copy Exhibit A. Letter dated 8/5/02 with annexure hereto emanating from the Chambers of (Al) Adejobi & Aladejobi & Co and addressed to [Bamboozle) Oshikalu & Co accepted and marked Exhibit A. Accused Counsel I'm not objecting. I thus went to Panti CID to report and Alagbon Close and Surulere Police Station. I went to Alagbon.and _Panti because my signature was forged, stating that I have given them the property. The signature as appended on the agreement is not mine. This is why I have cause to disagree and go to the Police that my signature has been forged. I confronted him, he was later charged to Court, (Underlining mine)

The Respondent is the "anor" in the charge in Suit No. LCD/91/04 between Alhaji Saliu A. Gbolagade & Anor. referred to in Exhibit Rl.

The rest of the statement of FACTS can be dealt with briefly. Items (c) and (d) and (f) have been dealt with by implication earlier. Item (e) is not relevant for the determination of the main issue in this proceedings which is whether the conduct of the Respondent falls within the class of conducts which can be described as infamous conduct in any professional respect i.e. an act or omission which in the opinion of the disciplinary committee is such that will bring the profession into disrepute.

The Respondent presented two issues for determination in the resolution of the matters in difference between him and the complainants in this suit. These issues are:

(a) Whether a person who is not ex facie expressed to be the maker of a document could be said to be the maker of a document on account of the fact that it was made by another Counsel in the persons Chambers - Issue A

(b) Whether the ingredients of the crime of forgery have been established before the Committee. Issue B
The committee shall deal briefly with each of these issues as no issues have been framed for the Petitioner.

On Issue A: The principle is that he who does or executes something through another is deemed in law to have done or executed that something through and by himself. This principle is at the root of the law of agency in Civil Law and to a large extent is also applicable in Criminal Law in connection with the question of Parties to a crime.

The principal exception to the application of this rule in Civil Law is where it is alleged that the person masquerading as an agent is in fact an independent contractor on his own or in popular parlance, a lone ranger. The question now is whether it is open to the Respondent to plead that despite his posture in Exhibit A14 as the Master or Principal of his Chambers, each counsel in his Chambers is in fact an Independent Contractor. If it is still open to him to so plead, he must go further and provide the evidence upon which this Committee can so find.

It is with the utmost humility that the committee asserts that no such evidence has been provided.
There is therefore no basis on which the Committee can find that assuming Exhibit A15, A16, A17 which are the same document as Exhibit A 29 - A30 are forgeries, the Respondent is not a party to that forgery. This issue is therefore decided against the Respondent.

On Issue B: It has been said in several of the matters relating to disciplinary proceedings that such proceedings are not criminal trial and cannot be alternative to criminal trials. In this instance what is in issues is not the crime of forgery.
That 1 suppose is what is being ventilated in the Lagos State High Court; what is in issue here can be put in this manner. A document which can also be referred to as a document of title is alleged to have been forged. The alleged act of forgery is said to have taken place or originated from the office of a firm of lawyers whose undoubted principal is the Respondent. In the course of the resulting altercation, the matter was reported to the police and the opinion of a handwriting expert was obtained confirming the alleged forgery. If this scenario is correct, would that not amount to an infamous conduct. That is precisely the situation in this matter. We go back again to exhibit A14 which was the letter from the Respondent as principal of Aladejobi & Aladejobi & Co., counsel Alhaji Saliu Gbolagade & Co. to Abimbola Isikalu & Co. counsel to the Petitioner. The Petitioner when she received the offending exhibits reported a case of forgery to the police. The police had to subject the suspect document to forensic examination, in Exhibit 23, the document examiner of the forensic science laboratory of the Nigeria Police Force confirmed that the questioned signature in the portion of the relevant document, is spurious. On the strength of this finding both Alhaji Saliu Gbolagade and the Respondent were charged to court for forgery of a lease agreement for the property at No 52, Western Avenue, Surulere Lagos property of Victoria Akinyele for ten years dated 1/3/2001 purported to have, been signed by the said Victoria Akinyele and Alhaji Saliu Gbolagade with intent that it may be acted upon as genuine...
"There were eight other charges all alleging what one may term infamous acts unbecoming of a lawyer. Not one of the persons who participated in the making of the alleged forged document, all of whom belong to Aladejobi and Aladejobi & Co. firm was called as a witness. Moreover from the Respondents own evidence before this Committee, it was Alhaji Saliu Gbolagade who brought the petitioner to the Respondent’s chambers to provide the legal framework for Alhaji Gbolagade to look after the Petitioners property at 52, Western Avenue. How did it come about that when about the end of the year Alhaji Gbolagade returned to the Respondent’s chambers and he gave the advice that a new document giving the Alhaji a 10 years lease over the property should be prepared, he acted only on what he was told by the Alhaji Gbolagade. Taking all the above circumstances into account, the Respondent ought to know that before this Committee, the complaint against him is not for the offence of forgery as created by statute or common law but simply whether the dealing between him, his law firm and the petitioner have been above board. The way issue "B" has been framed and argued by the respondent without any evidence other than his ipse dixit leaves the Committee with no alternative than to decide that issue against him. Issue “B" is for the above reasons decided against the Respondent. For the above reasons the Committee finds that the Respondent has no defence to the complaint against him. He has introduced no evidence to leave any doubt in the mind of the Committee that the gravamen of the complaint against him has been proved.

Based on the facts before the Committee, the Respondent is liable for professional misconduct. This Committee will never condone any indecent conduct in the legal profession.

DIRECTION:

1.The Committee hereby directs that the name of Jide Aladejobi, be struck off from the Roll of Legal Practitioners in Nigeria.

2. Certified copies of this Direction shall be served on the Chief Registrar Supreme Court, Chief Registrar Court of Appeal, all Chief Judges in Nigeria including F.C.T and Federal High Court. The Attorney General of the Federation and all States Attorneys General. The President, Nigeria Bar Association and all branches of the Nigerian in Bar Association.


Signed:
Hon. Justice Umaru Eri OFR.
Chairman.
21st April, 2008.