THREE years after a legal battle surrounding the proceeds from the sale of a United Kingdom (UK) property ensued, a Lagos High Court, Igbosere, has finally drawn the curtain on the case, finding the foreign firm guilty of misconduct, leading to series of fines imposed on the firm and a Nigerian legal practitioner, trading her profession in London, United Kingdom.Interestingly, the fines imposed on the firm and a Nigerian lawyer based in the UK, were part of the voluntary resolution of the matter.Following the sale of a property located at 38 Garfield Road, Plaistow, London E13 8EN, involving two legal practitioners, one based and practicing in Nigeria and the other based and practicing in the United Kingdom, the original owner of the property had through the internet discovered that part of the proceed of the sale was diverted. This led to the suit, preferring allegation of misconduct against the two lawyers and the UK legal firm.While the British law firm Duncan Lewis and Co Solicitors, and the Nigerian lawyers named in the suit are Messrs Babatunde Oshilaja - sued as attorney to the administrators of the estate of one Gilbert Olufadejimi Osiname - and Mrs. Olayemi Olive Omobolani Daniel. Daniel, a Nigerian, is currently practising law in the UK. They are first, second and third respondents respectively. The suit, filed by the former owner of the property, Mrs. Funmilayo Osiname, a Nigerian, before a Lagos High Court, is seeking a refund of the proceeds from the sale - put at 23,500'a sum she alleged was misappropriated. Osiname, who sued for and on behalf of the administrators of the estate of Gilbert Olufadejimi Osiname, also sought in the alternative a refund against both the second and third defendants. She also asked the court to order payment of a 21 per cent interest a year from June 8, 2005 until judgment and thereafter at the rate of 21 per cent until liquidation in favour of the claimant. A sum of N3 million claimed to be legal fees incurred by the claimant in prosecuting the matter is being demanded. The issue before the court is that the administrators of the estate had instructed the family counsel, Oshilaja to assist in selling off the property. Oshilaja then contacted the British law firm for the transaction. The firm passed the file on the deal to Ms Daniel. The property was eventually sold but the proceeds were allegedly not remitted. Following an alleged understatement of the proceeds of the sale, counsel to the family, Oshilaja, exchanged some correspondence with the British, alleging misappropriation.Shortly after the sale and before the bubble burst, Ms Daniel had, according to the claims, left Duncan Lewis & Co. to establish her own firm as shown in a correspondence extended to her by her former employer. After some enquiries, the British firm, which did not deny the transaction, wrote Ms Daniel as to its findings on the controversial proceeds. The letter reads: 'From the file and ledger it appears that on June 8, 2005, the sum of 23,500 from the net proceeds of sale was telegraphically transferred to Mr. O. Sonbody at Nationwide Building Society in Walthamstow. There is unfortunately no formal written letter of instruction or written authority on file from our client requesting and/or authorising this transfer. Similarly there is no telephone attendance note on file recording such instructions having been received from our client and/or letter from our firm to Mr. O. Sonbody and/or to our client confirming the release of 23,500. 'The reason for the transaction is slated to be proceeds paid to beneficiary on PR instructions. We cannot establish whether Mr. O. Sonbody is a beneficiary under the will. The balance of the net proceeds of sale in the sum 144,012.37 was sent by telegraphic transfer to the client on August 16, 2005. Mr. Oshilaja is claiming that 23,500 transferred to Mr. O. Sonbody was not transferred with his instructions. He is claiming that this sum must be paid to him immediately.' As the matter dragged on, the proceeds' beneficiaries went to court seeking three specific prayers. At the initial stage, while the first defendant, Oshilaja, denied the fact that he received the sum of 168,500 on behalf of the claimant through his statement of claim and counter-affidavit, the other two defendants kicked against the action, saying the court had no jurisdiction to try the matter. But three years into the suit, they sought for peaceful accord, leading to the consent judgment delivered recently by Justice D Okuwobi.Parts of the judgment read:' That the second defendant shall pay the sum of 23,500 to the claimant being the outstanding balance of the money due and payable to the claimant from the net proceeds of 168,500 realized and received on behalf of the claimant by the second defendant during the sale of claimant's property'' The second defendant shall also pay interest of 0.25per cent per annum on the 23,500 from the 8th of June to the 31st of May 2011.' That the second defendant shall pay the sum of N1 million only to the claimant's counsel (Mr. Olatunji Sheriff) being part of the costs of his professional fees while the claimant will pay the remaining balance of the professional fees to the counsel.' That the claimant shall pay 20per cent commission to the first defendant on the sum of 23,500 being the outstanding balance of the commission due to him from the proceed of the sale of'' That the second defendant shall pay the sum of 550.00 to the first defendant being the sum awarded by the Legal Complaints Service for the service failing.The court also ordered the immediate withdrawal of the first defendant's counter-claim against the second defendant.
Click here to read full news..
