The Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee has fixed July 29 for the hearing of a professional misconduct petition filed against Mr Ikechukwu Ezechukwu, SAN, and two other legal practitioners.
The two other lawyers named in the petition are Smart Ukpanah and Hope Onyekwere.
The matter was adjourned after the committee rejected an application asking it to dismiss the petition on the ground that the petitioner had indicated interest in withdrawing the complaint.
Counsel to Ezechukwu, Mr D. O. Okolo, had urged the panel to terminate the proceedings, arguing that the petitioner, Mr Kingsley Aneubuna, had written to the committee expressing a desire to discontinue the matter.
Okolo also told the panel that the petitioner was aware of the proceedings but was absent from the sitting.
However, the committee, chaired by Mr Kalu Umeh, refused the application.
Umeh held that under the rules guiding the disciplinary body, a petition could not be withdrawn once issues had been joined by the parties.
According to him, the committee was required to adopt the processes already filed by the petitioner and proceed with the matter.
The panel then adjourned the case until July 29 for definite hearing.
Documents in the matter showed that Aneubuna filed the petition against Ezechukwu, Ukpanah and Onyekwere over allegations of professional misconduct, criminal misrepresentation, forgery and perjury.
The petition arose from a disputed property transaction involving Ngozika Nwaneri, Uche Okoli and Multi Shelters Limited.
The property dispute is linked to Suit No. FCT/HC/CV/1182/2018 over Plot No. 713, Cadastral Zone B14, Dutse District, Abuja.
According to the petition, the petitioner was offered a terrace duplex on the disputed land in 2018 by Okoli and Multi Shelters Limited for ₦51 million.
Before making payment, the petitioner and her lawyer allegedly sought clarification from Ezechukwu about the legal status of the property.
The petition claimed that they were assured that the title was clean and free from any encumbrance.
The petitioner said she relied on the assurance, accepted the offer, made payments and signed an agreement for the property.
The agreement reportedly required the house to be completed within about two years, while the petitioner was expected to complete payment within the same period.
The petitioner later raised concerns over the slow pace of construction but was allegedly assured that the project would still be delivered as agreed.
In 2021, she allegedly discovered that the property had already been the subject of litigation since March 2018.
The petition further alleged that an injunction had been granted in the matter by Justice Hussein Yusuf in 2018.
Aneubuna also alleged that the petitioner was joined as a co-claimant in the suit without her knowledge or consent.
The petition claimed that Ukpanah filed court processes and represented the petitioner and other subscribers without authorisation.
It also alleged that Onyekwere testified in court on behalf of the petitioner and others without their approval.
The petition further accused Ezechukwu of presenting an allegedly forged version of the agreement between his clients and the petitioner.
According to the complaint, the disputed document allegedly carried a forged signature and was backdated to 2012 instead of 2018, when the petitioner said the genuine agreement was executed.
The petitioner maintained that both the genuine and disputed agreements were prepared by Ezechukwu.
She further alleged that Ezechukwu was aware that litigation over the property was already pending in 2018 when the property was sold.
The petitioner claimed she paid for the property based on alleged misrepresentations made by Ezechukwu and his clients.
She later engaged another lawyer to apply for her name to be removed from the suit.
The petitioner subsequently filed Petition No. BB/LPDC/760/2022 before the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee.
She asked the LPDC to investigate the three lawyers, all of whom are legal practitioners called to the Nigerian Bar.
The July 29 hearing is expected to determine the next stage of the disciplinary proceedings.
