Breaking News For Law Firms In Lagos
Breaking News For Law Firms In Lagos
Embedded Files
Judge Overturns Consent Decree!
Judge Overturns Consent Decree!
Lagos Lawyer Neglected To Obtain His Client's Signature
Lagos Lawyer Neglected To Obtain His Client's Signature
Judge Officially Overturns Controversial Consent Decree Written By Georgetown Solicitor Barr. Franklin Onuoha After Serious Allegations of "Fraudulent Misrepresentation"
Judge Officially Overturns Controversial Consent Decree Written By Georgetown Solicitor Barr. Franklin Onuoha After Serious Allegations of "Fraudulent Misrepresentation"
UPDATE: Ikeja Lawyer Sued By His Own Client For 'Deliberately Withholding Information' For 3 Years -- FINAL VERDICT: Judge In The High Court of Lagos State RULES In Client's Favour Over Law Firm In Lagos
UPDATE: Ikeja Lawyer Sued By His Own Client For 'Deliberately Withholding Information' For 3 Years -- FINAL VERDICT: Judge In The High Court of Lagos State RULES In Client's Favour Over Law Firm In Lagos
Suit No: ID/6049FPM/2023
Suit No: ID/6049FPM/2023
Verdict reached on 28th day of March 2024, in High Court of Lagos State
From The Desk of Emmanuel A. A. Kanu
Published: 13:14, 6 September 2024
Franklin Chisom Onuoha of Lagos law firm Georgetown Solicitors saw his own Terms of Settlement document INVALIDATED after it was judged not legally binding in a High Court of Lagos on 28 March 2024.
A series of court papers strongly alleged that Barr. Franklin Chisom Onuoha misled the Honourable Court
Applicant maintained that Barr. Franklin Chisom Onuoha attempted to pass vital document through court without her consent or signature
An origination motion held that Barr. Onuoha had deliberately misrepresented the outcome of a mediation session
Barr. Onuoha reportedly failed to comply with the clear instructions of his own client
Evidence presented in court implied that Barr. Onouha had been 'deliberately withholding information' for almost four years
14 exbihits produced in court suggested that Barr. Franklin Chisom Onuoha AGAINST the interests of his own client
Barr. Onuoha claimed he told details of crucial 3-page legal document to his client in a "Whats App" call
Judge's official written verdict that ruled in Ms Kassim's favour
After several hours of deliberation, the Judge in the High Court of Lagos State granted a relief to Ms Kassim and OVERTURNED the document, referring to the previous legal case of Igweh & Anor. V Igweh & Ors. (2019), which confirmed,
"A consent judgment cannot be binding on parties that did not sign name, and that such judgment is to the extent that the party who did not sign name is concerned, a nullity."
Georgetown solicitor Barr. Franklin Chisom was unable to show documented proof THAT he obtained the applicant's consent when he had the Terms of Settlement stamped. Consequently, the document was set aside.
Barr. Onuoha's Document Invalidated By High Court Judge Due To 'Disputed Consent'
Judge learned from documents that Barr. Onuoha never had power of attorney but still appended his signature to the column designated for his client.
Following the verdict, we approached Ms Kassim for comment, and she stated the following:
'I have no faith in the Nigerian legal system. Franklin Chisom Onuoha had been deliberately withholding information for over 3 years, and on that alone he is unfit for practice.'
After evaluating the originating motions and affidavits from all parties, a Judge in the High Court of Lagos State explained that...
'in view of the totality of the evidence particularly the disputed consent of the Applicant to the 2nd Respondent to enter the Consent Judgment, it is safe that the Consent judgment is set aside'.
It is not impossible for a Terms of Settlement document, also called a Consent decree, to be set aside in court.
As explained below.
"Complexity: Consent decrees can be complex in questions of modification, either before or after it is enacted: "the decree issued by consent cannot be modified, except by consent. Only where the consent has been obtained by fraud or given by mistake will a bill be entertained to set it aside". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consent_decree
What Is The Case All About?
Initially, the case centered on a litigation issue involving Ms Kassim and the 1st respondent, Enitan Raliatu.
The father of Ms Kassim left several properties in his Will, bequeathed to his 6 children, including Ms Kassim.
Raliatu, on the other hand, claimed to be a daughter of the late Alhaji G.A. Kassim, although this has never been confirmed.
After reading and disapproving of the Will's contents. Raliatu attempted to thwart the reading of the Will on several occasions as a way of preventing the properties being released to Ms Kassim and her siblings.
Ms Kassim explained that Raliatu wanted to reading of the Will stopped so that she could claim the properties for herself.
Following years of delay, Ms Kassim had to contact Barr. Onuoha to initiate the reading of the Will and overcome the tactics of Raliatu.
Why Was Barr. Onuoha Sued?
In 2017, Ms Kassim paid Barr. Onuoha a fee to start proceedings that would allow a reading of her late father's Will.
Some months later, she began to grow suspicious when she noticed some strange signs from Barr. Onuoha.
She said around the time of 2019, Barr. Onuoha,
Stopped answering calls from both herself and her siblings
No longer provided updates after mediation sessions
Only finally responded when he was told legal proceedings would be taken against him after he ignored 14 email requests for an update.
The turning point was when Ms Kassim issued a formal letter before action to Barr. Onuoha and Barr. Abimbola Badejo in 2020.
What Date Was Barr. Onuoha Sued?
Ms Kassim explained to us that the final straw was on 6 February 2023 when Barr. Onuoha sent her a stamped Terms of Settlement document that she hadn't ever seen.
The document was stamped and signed in August 2019, but the only official record of Barr. Onuoha sending the document to Ms Kassim is on 6 February 2023, over three years after it was first signed.
In addition, Ms Kassim noticed that the document did not even contain her own signature, and the column designated for her signature was instead signed by Barr. Onuoha himself.
Even further, Ms Kassim never received a DRAFT of the Consent Decree.
But what she found the most disturbing part of all was that her own lawyer Barr. Onuoha had inserted three critical clauses that would BENEFIT and ALLOW Raliatu, the opposition, to file for joint letters of administration.
Joint letters of administration would result in the properties, originally left for Ms Kassim and her siblings, being assigned to Raliatu instead.
After seeing how this Terms of Settlement document was stamped TWICE by a judge without her signature, consent or knowledge, Ms Kassim immediately contacted a law firm to file an origination motion AGAINST her own lawyer, Barr. Onuoha, who was racing in his attempts to pass the document through court for a THIRD TIME.
Barr. Onuoha was finally served an originating motion notice on 4 October 2023.
What Were The 3 Clauses Barr. Onuoha Withheld?
in 2019, Barr. Onuoha inserted 3 clauses into the Terms of Settlement.
The actual Terms of Settlement document and its three terms/clauses
CLAUSE 1: "That in the event of a default to the terms of settlement, the Party not in default shall be at liberty to enforce these terms of settlement in court."
CLAUSE 2: "The parties hereby fully waive, withdraw, abandon and relinquish any past, present and future claims of any nature whatsoever in respect of all claims pertaining to, arising from or connected with this suit and the subject matter of this suit."
CLAUSE 3: "That if any objection is raised as to the validity and/or lodegment of the Will at the point of reading the Will. and the representative of the claimant finds merit in the point so raised, Parties shall apply for a Letter of Administration in the joint names of the 2nd Defendant and the Claimant."
How Did Ms Kassim Get The Document Set Aside?
In April 2023, Ms Kassim started the process of suing Barr. Onuoha for fraudulent misrepresentation.
She sought reliefs and requested the document be set aside on the following grounds:
1. Barr. Onuoha acted contrary to the mandate and authority he was given by the Applicant that “We would like to be contacted promptly and fully updated on this matter and consulted on any final agreement”
2. Barr. Onuoha misrepresented the outcome of the mediation of which he was given the conditional authority to represent the Applicant by concealing from the Applicant the content of clause 3 in the Term of Settlement (Exhibit 8).
3. The Terms of Settlement was not signed by the Applicant but only Barr. Onuoha.
4. Barr. Onuoha signed the signature column of the Term of Settlement legally designated for the signature of the Applicant without consulting the Applicant on Clause 3 of the Terms of Settlement which is a very vital issue contrary to the mandate given to Barr. Onuoha. The Applicant requested as a condition that she is to be “consulted On any final agreement”;
5. Barr. Onuoha misled the Honourable Court and the 1 Respondent into believing he had the authorization of the Applicant to sign the Signature column of the Terms of Settlement legally designated for the signature of the Applicant.
6. The signature column for the Signature of the Applicant provided in the Terms of Settlement makes the signature of the Applicant a condition Precedent for the validity of the Terms of Settlement.
7. Barr. Onuoha signing “for” the Applicant in the signature column Provided for the Applicant (after signing the signature column provided for the Applicant's Counsel) without the authorization/consent of the Applicant amounts/amounted to misrepresentation of the authorization/consent of the Applicant.
8. The signatures Barr. Onuoha signed for himself as Counsel in the signature column designated as Counsel of the applicant and the signature of Barr. Onuoha signed for the applicant by Barr. Onuoha in the signature column designated for the applicant in the Terms of Settlement executed/filed on the 7th August, 2019 are unauthorised signatures.
9. A forged or unathorized signature is wholly invalid or inoperative.
The Numerous Unsubstantiated Claims of Barr. Onuoha's Defense
Barr. Onuoha Unable To Support Argument With Evidence:
Georgetown solicitor Barr. Onuoha responded to Ms Kassim with a fierce counter affidavit that featured a series of uncorroborated claims, most notably paragraph 15, which alleged the contents of the Terms of Settlement were "already known" to the applicant from an email he sent on 5 August 2019.
Paragraph 15 of Barr. Onuoha's Defence & Counter Affidavit
1: Expose of Paragraph 15 - August 5 2019 Email (Exhibit M3)
THE CHARGE: Applicant maintained that Barr. Onuoha failed to inform her of the contents of the Terms of Settlement.
THE DEFENSE: Barr. Onuoha claimed that he did actually inform the applicant of the 'general contents' of the Terms of Settlement in an email sent on 5 August 2019.
THE CONCLUSION: Analysis of the email fails to show proof of Barr. Onuoha ever mentioning, explaining or summarising the general contents of a Terms of Settlement document.
The actual email from Barr Onuoha makes no mention of any contents of the Terms Of Settlement at all.
The email from 5 August 2019 - marked as Exhibit M3 - simply states that the meeting was '...adjourned to pick a date for the reading of the Will as will be passed by the court as a consent judgment on October...'.
Email of August 5 2019 - Exhibit M3:
From: Franklyn Onuoha
From: Franklyn Onuoha
Sent: Monday 5 August 2019, 15:29:41
Sent: Monday 5 August 2019, 15:29:41
Subject: Update on the mediation of July 31st 2019.
Subject: Update on the mediation of July 31st 2019.
"Thereafter, Enitan and her Lawyer held a private meeting and finally agreed that the Will be read. The Probate Judge, however, said that one of the siblings will have to be present at the reading of the Will. Thereafter, we adjourned to pick a date for the reading of the Will as will be passed by the court as a consent judgment on October, 21st 2019 when the matter will come up for hearing.
"Thereafter, Enitan and her Lawyer held a private meeting and finally agreed that the Will be read. The Probate Judge, however, said that one of the siblings will have to be present at the reading of the Will. Thereafter, we adjourned to pick a date for the reading of the Will as will be passed by the court as a consent judgment on October, 21st 2019 when the matter will come up for hearing.
Chisom Onuoha Franklin"
Chisom Onuoha Franklin"
Did Barr. Franklin Chisom Declare Critical Information To His Client?
As can be seen, Barr. Onuoha's email to his client on 5 August 2019...
FAILED to make a single reference to "joint letters of administration" being filed if merit is found in an objection
FAILED to mention that the Party not in default shall be at liberty to enforce these terms of settlement in court.
FAILED to state that the parties hereby fully waive, withdraw, abandon and relinquish any past, present and future claim
Conclusion:
A. Barr. Onuoha claimed he informed applicant of Terms of Settlement contents in 5 August 2019 email: OUTCOME: No DOCUMENTS OR EVIDENCE Could Be Found To Support This Claim.
B. Applicant alleged that Barr. Onuoha FAILED to inform her of the contents of the Terms of Settlement in the email sent on 5 August 2019 - TRUE - Substantiated by EXHIBIT M3.
Major Questions Surrounding The Plausibility of Barr. Franklin Chisom Onuoha's Defense - Paragraph 11
Major Questions Surrounding The Plausibility of Barr. Franklin Chisom Onuoha's Defense - Paragraph 11
Barr. Onuoha's 'Whatsapp' Defence Not Backed Up By Any Solid Court Evidence
The Georgetown Lagos Solicitor also reacted to the applicant's originating motion by maintaining that he obtained consent for Ms Kassim's signature in the Terms of Settlement during a 'WhatsApp' conversation.
Paragraph 11 - Counter Affidavit Defence From Barr. Onuoha
2: Expose of Barr. Onuoha's Defense in Paragraph 11
THE CHARGE: Applicant maintained that Barr. Onuoha DID NOT obtain her consent to sign Terms of Settlement during a Whats App call.
THE DEFENSE: Barr. Onuoha claimed that he did obtain applicant's consent to sign on her behalf during a 'lengthy' What's App phone conversation.
THE CONCLUSION: Barr Franklin Chisom Onuoha FAILED to produce a single piece of evidence in this court session to prove consent or that a What's App conversation even took place.
Inarguable evidence presented by the applicant dealt a dramatic hammer blow to Barr. Onuoha's chances of proving he obtained Ms Kassim's consent to sign the Terms of Settlement on her behalf.
Two Emails Reveal Barr. Onuoha Did Not Have His Own Client's What's App Number
Court exhibits lifted the lid on the fact that Barr. Onuoha did not possess Ms Kassim's Whats App number before or after the Consent Decree.
Two separate emails from 2017 and 2021 expose Barr. Onuoha asking for the applicant's Whats App number.
A) EMAIL 1 :
Exhibit 19: Email of 23 February 2017
Sent: Thursday, 23 February 2017, 10:15
Subject: Re: Our Account Details.
"ok. I will let you know once the payment comes in. Please let me have a functional phone number where I can always reach you in case I need to talk to you. If it is your WhatsApp number, that will be great. mine is 07*********. That's my WhatsApp number as well."
Exhibit 19 court paper - Barr, Onuoha asking f or applicant's WhatsApp number
B) Email 2:
Exhibit 21: Email of 18 June 2021
From: Franklyn Onuoha
Sent: Friday 18 June 2021 at 17:17:49 BST
Subject: Re: Update.
Barr. Onuoha - "Secondly, I wish I can have your phone number connected to Whatsapp, so I can give you an immediate update once we leave court instead of waiting for email and all these friction.
Exhibit M21 - Crucial email showing Barr. Onuoha did not have his client's Whatsapp number
Barr. Onuoha Reportedly 'Did Not Comply With The Mandate' and Express Instruction Given By His Client
Barr. Onuoha Reportedly 'Did Not Comply With The Mandate' and Express Instruction Given By His Client
Just prior to the date the Terms of Settlement was first stamped in August 2019, Barr. Onuoha requested that his client send a letter of authority allowing him to represent her on his behalf during a mediation session.
Ms Kassim sent an offical letter of authority via email, but with two specific stipulations:
A. Ms Kassim stated that Barr. Onuoha could represent her only on the condition that he 'fully updated' her on the outcome of the mediation meeting.
B. Ms Kassim made it a prequisite that Barr. Onouha could represent her only if she was' consulted on any final agreement.'
C. Ms Kassim stated that Barr. Onuoha could represent her on the condition that she is to be contacted promptly.
Exhibit M2 - Applicant's email to Barr. Onuoha explicitly stating to be updated BEFORE any agreement is made final.
Leaked court papers showed that Barr. Onuoha acted in a way that was adverse to these instructions.
In his own emails sent between 5 August and 7 August 2019, Barr. Onuoha failed to do the following:
FAILED to show evidence he FULLY updated his client on the critical terms that had been inserted into the Consent Decree
FAILED to show evidence he consulted his client BEFORE appending his signature to the consent decree
FAILED to show evidence that he contacted his client to inform her that the Consent Decree contained a clause that could allow the opposition to file for joint letters of administration
Barr. Onuoha's following email stated that an agreement had been reached but did NOT show evidence that he updated her on the 3 vital terms of the Consent Decree or consulted his client first BEFORE appending his own signature on her behalf.
CONCLUSION:
Barr. Onuoha claimed in paragraph 13 of the counter affidavit that he 'fully, verbally briefed' his client on the Terms of Settlement: OUTCOME: NO DOCUMENTS OR EVIDENCE COULD BE FOUND TO SUPPORT HIS CLAIM.
The Potential Implications For Barr. Onuoha and Risk Involved Using Law Firms In Lagos
The Potential Implications For Barr. Onuoha and Risk Involved Using Law Firms In Lagos
This explosive legal case and its controversial outcome pose some serious questions about Barr. Onuoha.
Key Points Everyone Must Consider:
Why was Barr. Onuoha unable to produce any evidence that he made the Terms of Settlement document available before 6 February 2023?
Why did Barr. Onuoha claim in his counter affidavit that he made the 'general contents of the Terms of Settlement' known to his client in the August 5 2019 email... when according to his own email above this did not occur?
Why did Ms Kassim write that she had asked for an update 14 times but was simply ignored by Barr. Onuoha?
Is it professional or plausible that a solicitor would reveal the contents of a vital Consent Decree in a 'Whats App' phone call?
Why is there NO RECORD of Barr. Onuoha having sent a simple draft of the document to his client?
Why did Barr. Onuoha produce a Terms of Settlement which contained a clause that was the complete inverse of what his own client Ms Kassim was seeking?
Why did the Terms of Settlement document contain a clause that would allow the applicant's opponent to claim a property of which she was never a beneficiary?
If the Terms of Settlement document constructed by Barr. Onuoha was not fraudulent, why did the Judge invalidate it?.
Why did Barr. Onuoha not state in his 5 August 2019 email that a Terms of Settlement document had been SIGNED by all parties except his own client?
Why did Barr. Onuoha portray the 5 August 2019 meeting as an adjournment, when in fact a SIGNED settlement took place - which was not revealed to his client?
In the 6 years of correspondence why was there not one single email, text or letter from Barr. Onuoha revealing a clause which could allow joint letters of administration?
Why did Barr. Onuoha append his own signature to the column designated for his client, without her knowledge?
Why did Barr. Onuoha claim he informed his client of the Consent decree in a WhatsApp call, but evidence showed TWO EMAILS from Barr. Onuoha never possessed his client's WhatsApp number?
Why wasn't Barr. Onuoha ever proven to be listed as a contact in the applicant's WhatsApp download report taken from Whats App servers?
Why did Barr. Onuoha attempt to distance himself from Georgetown Solicitors by claiming in his counter affidavit that he was only an 'associate', while in his own email he states that he is a 'senior partner'?
Why would Barr. Onuoha create a Terms of Settlement document with a clause that would result in financial loss for his OWN client?
The two sides produced wildly different accounts, with Barr. Onuoha's counsel labelling the applicant's originating motion as 'baseless'.
However, attendants believed Ms Kassim's counsel convincingly proved that it was in fact Barr. Onuoha who 'failed woefully' to show any evidence that he obtained his client's consent, complied with her instructions to provide full updates or forwarded a draft copy of the Terms of Settlement.
Ultimately, Barr. Franklyn Chisom Onuoha produced a counter affidavit but did could not offer any text messages or emails in court as proof that he revealed the contents of the Terms of Settlement to his client.
Did Barr. Onuoha try to distance himself from Georgetown Solicitors?
Did Franklin Chisom Onouha 'LIE ON OATH' When He Alleged He Did Not Operate Under The Ikeja Law Firm Georgetown Solicitors?
Did Franklin Chisom Onouha 'LIE ON OATH' When He Alleged He Did Not Operate Under The Ikeja Law Firm Georgetown Solicitors?
In paragraph 3 of the counter affidavit, Barr. Onuoha alleged that he did not trade 'under the name and style of Georgetown Solicitors' - but is this truthful?
If one looks at the image here on the right, they will clearly see Barr. Onuoha claim in Paragraph 3 that he does not trade under the name and style of Georgetown Solicitors.
But the critical question that must be asked is why did Barr. Onuoha refer to himself as the SENIOR PARTER of Georgetown Solicitors in both Exhibit M16 and M17 ?
Exhibit M16 - Barr. Onuoha refers to himself as Senior Partner on his OWN website
Exhibit M16 - Barr. Onuoha refers to himself as Senior Partner on his OWN website
Exhibit M17 - Barr. Onuoha refers to himself as Senior Partner of Georgetown Solicitors in his own email to Ms Kassim
Exhibit M17 - Barr. Onuoha refers to himself as Senior Partner of Georgetown Solicitors in his own email to Ms Kassim
Readers might be left scratching their heads, wondering is Barr. Onuoha a partner or not of the Lagos law firm Georgetown Solicitors?
The affidavit states he is not, but his own website he still currently refers to himself as the Senior Partner? Does all of this seem confusing?
In her comment after the court hearing, Ms Kassim expanded furthe on this pointr:
'I can not say that I am totally surprised. He took an oath and then violated all the rules that he was supposed to follow. He [Barr. Onuoha] should be struck off but it is well known that corruption in the Nigerian legal system is off the scale.
It is not being tackled. It is also well known that the court officials and judges in the Nigerian legal system are easily bribed to obtain favourable judgments.' -- Ms Kassim
What Does This Mean For Top Law Firms In Nigeria? And How Can You Know Which One To Trust?
For a person seeking urgent assistance from any of the top law firms in Nigeria, how can they ensure legal practitioners will act in the client's' best interests?
To help, we will offer some vital suggestions in the next article, which is will be public soon.
In the meantime, to anyone currently eager to know their tenancy rights in Nigeria, you can know the laws that apply to you by following the link.
© Copyright
© Copyright
This content and all content published on Naija Dispatch.com is fully and completely owned by Naija Dispatch.com.
Disclaimer:
The views and opinions expressed do not reflect the views or positions of www. Naija Dispatch. Com
Emmanuel A. A. Kanu
Page updated
Google Sites
Report abuse