Association of Local Governments of Nigeria (ALGON) and 702 Local Government Areas (LGAs) have urged the Federal High Court in Abuja to dismiss a suit filed by a lawyer, Mr Joe Agi, SAN.
Agi, in the suit, sought the payment of 159 million dollars as legal fee from ALGON and LGAs’ account for his involvement in the Paris Club Refund debt buy back.
However, ALGON and the LGAs, in their reaction, disagreed with the senior lawyer.
They also prayed the court to discountenance the submission of Dr Ted Edwards, another legal practitioner, on his purported legal representation and payment for professional service for the association.
They made their position known in a joint counter affidavit filed by their lawyer, Donald Ayibiowu, before Justice James Omotosho.
Agi, a lawyer, had instituted the suit marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/653/2026, to demand for his legal fees in the sum of $159 US dollars.
Agi named the Federal Government, the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF), the Minister of Finance and the Director-General, Debt Management Office, as defendants.
He listed the Accountant-General of the Federation (AGoF), Dr Ted Edwards, Incorporated Trustees of ALGON (For themselves and on behalf of the 774 local government councils in Nigeria) as 5th to 7th defendants respectively.
The senior lawyer sought a declaration that the judgment, in motion number: M/1545/15, delivered by FCT High Court on Oct. 30, 2015 in favor of 6th defendant (Edwards) against 7th defendant (ALGON) was obtained by fraud and misrepresentation.
He said this subsequently misled the first to the fifth defendants to exercise their executive and administrative actions wrongly in favor of Edwards to his (Agi’s) detriment.
He sought a declaration that the exercise of the executive and administrative functions of the first, third, fourth and fifth defendants were misled to have issued the promissory notes of 159 million dollars in Edwards’ name, “who was not counsel to the 7th defendant to entitle him to legal fees in suit number: FHC/ABJ/CS/130/13.”
He, therefore, prayed Justice Omotosho for an order setting aside the judgment in motion number: M/1545/15 delivered on Oct. 30, 2015, for being a nullity abi initio.
Agi sought an order cancelling and or voiding the ten promissory notes issued wrongfully by the director, Debt Management Office and the Minister of Finance in tranches of 15.9 million dollars annually for 10 years from Sept. 27, 2021 in favor of Edwards, for having exercised their administrative and executive functions arbitrarily and wrongfully.
He sought an order mandating the 1st to 5th defendants to forthwith redeem the four promissory notes amounting to 63.6 million dollars that had since fallen due and pay same to him.
The lawyer also sought an order directing the first, third, fourth and fifth defendants to immediately reissue the six remaining promissory notes in his name, covering the same dates which was originally issued in the name of Edwards.
In the affidavit attached to the suit, Agi deposed that he was the lawyer briefed by Linas International Limited and ALGON to represent them to sue the Federal Government, AGF, Finance Minister and AGoF to recover the wrongful deductions from the LGAs in the London Paris Club debt buy back.
He said the judgment was entered on Dec. 3, 2013 by Justice A.F.A Ademola in the Federal High Court and that ALGON, to the knowledge of Edwards, agreed to pay him 10 per cent of whatever sum is awarded.
He said pursuant to the said judgment, he filed a garnishee proceeding wherein the court made the Garnishee Order Nisi for the payment of the sum of $3.188 billion.
He said even when Edwards and some strange fellows started laying claim to portions of the judgment, ALGON wrote to him and the court in letters dated Feb. 17, 2016 and Feb. 11, 2016, raising alarm and emphatically informing him as lead counsel that Edwards obtained his judgment by fraud and that he was not their counsel.
He said Edwards’ spurious claim to the payment of legal fees was dismissed in a well considered ruling by Justice Ademola on June 27, 2016.
According to him, pursuant to the fraudulent judgment obtained by the 6th defendant, the 1st, 3rd, 4th and 5th defendants, without my knowledge, proceeded into meetings with the 6th defendant.
“In the exercise of their executive and administrative functions offered to pay 159 million dollars and recommended same to the Chief of Staff to the President in a letter dated Dec. 23, 2019 and put the name of the 6th defendant on the said letter which is annexed as Exhibit JAI0.”
Agi said following the approval for the issuance of the promissory notes in ten tranches of 15.9 million dollars annually payable from Oct. 15, 2027, totaling 159 million dollars, he promptly protested to the first to fifth defendants that their action was wrong and was dangerous.
Agi averred that he was the “one who conducted the case and so entitled to the payment of the legal fees in issue which was administratively issued to the 6th defendant, howbeit wrongfully.”
He said he had written to the second and third defendants (Finance Minister and AGF) requesting for the reissuance of the promissory notes in his name.
He said it would be in the interest of justice for the defendants to reissue the promissory notes in his name.
The sixth defendant (Edwards), in his counter affidavit, disagreed with Agi’s submission.
Edwards, also a lawyer, told the court that he was briefed by the Board of Trustees of ALGON for legal consultancy and management services with respect to the London/Paris Club debt buy back over deductions.
He said his appointment initially was by the chairman of ALGON but was later ratified by the entire board and the scope expanded.
He said before his engagement, ALGON engaged a consultant to compute and recover from the Federal Government, funds belonging to the 774 LGAs which was illegally deducted by the Federal Government from the local government fund at the Federation Account for London/Paris Club debt buy back.
He said the consultant, Linas International Limited, had filed a suit for that purpose at the Federal High Court identified as suit number: FHC/CV/CS/180/2013.
He said the suit was initiated by Agi at the instance of Linas International Ltd, the consultant to ALGON/LGAs.
Edwards submitted that Agi’s fee was subsumed in the fees payable to Linas International Limited.
He said by Agi’s engagement, his fees should be borne by the consultant, not the LGAs.
“This agreement between Linas International and the Local Government/ ALGON was made a term of the judgment of the court In suit No. FHC/CV/CS/130/2013 delivered by the plaintiff as Exhibit JAI.”
Edwards argued that he was briefed independently by the ALGON Board from the brief given to Linas International Limited who in turn briefed Agi to help it do the recovery.
He insisted that he was briefed by ALGON to collaborate with the consultant doing the recovery through Agi and to ensure that the funds being recovered are not dissipated by ALGON management.
He said he was also briefed to ensure that he carried out his brief to the satisfaction of the employer who issued letter of no objection to payment of his fees to the 1st defendant (Federal Government).
Edwards said in furtherance of his brief, he engaged Ikechukwu Ezechukwu, SAN, to help him in the processes to the knowledge of his employers, ALGON.
He, however, said that the letters tendered by Agi as exhibits JA4, JAS and JAG were letters written in furtherance of the brief given to Linas International Ltd.
According to him, the letters were copied to Ikechukwu Ezechukwu, SAN, because the ALGON Board are aware that he engaged him as a leading member of his team.
The sixth defendant said that when he was not paid, he sued ALGON, representing the 774 LGAs at the FCT High Court and obtained judgment and garnishee absolute for the enforcement of the judgment against the CBN.
Besides, he said when the Federal Government showed reluctance to obey the judgment of FCT High Court, he consulted with Agi, who was prosecuting the recovery and applied that his judgment be registered in garnishee proceedings over suit number: FHC/ABJ/CS/130/2013.
He said it was the garnishee proceedings in that suit which Agi was prosecuting as the lead counsel at the instance of Linas International Limited.
Edwards said contrary to Agi’s claim, his application filed by the plaintiff (Agi) was rejected on the basis that the court cannot execute the judgment of FCT High Court nor sit on appeal over its decision.
He averred that Agi knew full well that ALGON did not brief him and that he (Edwards) was the one briefed.
“In fact, the plaintiff had acted for me in this matter of recovery of my legal fees and had in about two occasions written to the Hon. A.G of the Federation, acting as my counsel, for the recovery of my legal fees.”
“The plaintiff’s letter to the Hon. Attorney-General of the Federation dated 3rd January, 2017, is delivered as Exhibit G,” he said.
Edwards said he executed his contract with ALGON satisfactorily to the effect that he was Issued with a letter of no objection to the payment of his fees.
But in a counter affidavit by the seventh defendant, comprising of ALGON and 702 local government areas (LGAs) in Nigeria, deposed to by Bello Lawal, prayed the court to dismiss the suit.
Lawal, who is the elected National President of ALGON and the current Executive Chairman of Kaita Local Government, Katstina State, said they were familiar with the facts of the case.
He said as necessary and proper party, his attention was drawn to the pendency of the suit around May 30.
“I presented same to my colleagues at the NEC for deliberations
at office, and we have elected to state the following facts,” he said.
Lawal said they are persons of fundamental and irrefutable interest in the affairs of the subject matter of the funds being sought to be appropriated under the guise of purported legal representation and payment for professional service for ALGON.
He said ALGON is a common platform for the administration of all LGAs as the third tier of government in Nigeria.
He said the seventh defendant and the 702 LGAs are the principals and owners of the funds, allegedly cornered and now sought to be awarded between Agi and Edwards “flowing from the face of copious claims and documents filed before this court.”
Lawal, who called himself the chief accounting officer of ALGON, said contrary to Agi’s deposition, the association and the LGAs did not and never engage directly the professional services of the plaintiff and the 6th defendant (Agi and Edwards).
He argued that all the surreptitiously obtained documents from officials of ALGON were never issued before the commencement of the substantive suit marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/130/13.
Besides, he said none of the documents were intended to confer direct and/or concurrent contractual rights on Agi because they had previously briefed Messrs Linas International Ltd to do the
same job for which Agi is now claiming the LGAs engaged him, as being claimed before the court.
He said contrary to Agi’s averments in
paragraphs three and four of his affidavit, Justice Ademola, in his judgment, ordered a deduction at source of “20 per cent of the judgment sum to be paid to the first plaintiff through its solicitors, Joe Agi, SAN, into Skye Bank Plc account.
He said the judgment was delivered by Justice Ademola in suit number: FHC//ABJ//CS/130/2013.
Lawal said Agi eventually engaged in a legal brawl and struggle for his
professional fees with the Linas International Ltd after he had concluded his work as agreed according to him.
He said this led Agi to filed another suit marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/1193/2017 and went on to clearly posited to have been engaged by Linas International Ltd while it was working as consultant to the LGAs.
He said neither Agi nor Edwards who are laying claims to the funds directly
or indirectly had the consent of ALGON and LGAs, the owners of the funds, to deal proprietarily with funds belonging to them from the federation accounts as claimed by the plaintiff.
He insisted that the first to fifth defendants do not have any constitutional right to pay out funds belonging to them without their express authorization.
Lawal, therefore, prayed the court to dismiss the suit in its entirety.
Although the case came up for adoption on last adjourned date, counsel who appeared for Minister of Finance (3rd defendant), Oluwafemi Korisade, gave the court information from her office.
She told the court that her office said the AGF had instructed the counsel representing 1st and 2nd defendants (Federal Government and AGF) to amend their processes.
Also, Ikechukwu Ezechukwu, SAN, who appeared for Edwards, said the plaintiff had just served on them a process and they were still within time to respond.
Justice Omotosho consequently adjourned the matter until Sept. 30 for hearing.(NAN).
