Kepco, Ogunba and Jankara Tactics
Giving the Legal Profession a Bad Name
Being the Editor of this esteemed publication and a Senior Lawyer, people approach me regularly, to tell me how disenchanted they are with the Nigerian legal profession and Judiciary, for one reason or the other. I do agree that, many times, non-Lawyers do not understand the rules and workings of our profession and therefore, misinterpret some of our actions as curious or wrong, but, still, I usually feel quite embarrassed at their comments, and as much as I try to defend our sector, half the time they don’t buy my explanations. And, can one really blame them? When the truth is that, some members of our profession give them enough content and ammunition, to come to some of these unpalatable conclusions about us.
And, sadly, when it comes to the Lawyers, the Seniors who should know better, given their years of experience in practice, are sometimes worse. The LPDC (Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee) and LPPC (Legal Practitioners Privileges Committee) have to be more up and doing, in terms of dealing with erring legal practitioners. In the past, the LPPC has been accused of doing ‘esprit de corps’ with its erring members, and giving them nothing more than a slap on the wrist for serious infractions. No wonder they continue with their unethical ‘sharp’ practices when they are forgiven or reinstated. Having got off lightly on the past infractions, where is the deterrent?
The accusations against our profession are now extremely loud, and when the opportunity avails itself, such as when Lawyers announce themselves on the pages of the newspapers or other forms of media, thereby opening themselves up for public scrutiny, we must seize the opportunity to examine the issues that arise or we are able to, of course, without crossing any lines set in the Rules of Professional Conduct for Legal Practitioners 2023 (RPC).
Kepco vs Kunle Ogunba, SAN
Last Thursday, I watched an interview of a Lawyer, Yinka Ola-Daniels, who talked about a case concerning Kepco Energy Resources Nigeria Limited (Kepco), and a syndicated loan advanced by about 10 banks (the Banks) to Kepco. I will stay away from the substantive matter for now, and restrict myself to what we have seen in the media space.
In his submissions, Mr Ola-Daniels expressed some worry, based on the fact that Kunle Ogunba, SAN, purportedly appointed as Receiver/Manager of Kepco on behalf of the Banks, had taken out advertisements in the newspapers, including This Day and Punch, on 6/8/2025, the day after the court delivered its ‘Composite Ruling’, and Mr Ola-Daniels alleged that the said advertisement was a misrepresentation of the Composite Ruling delivered on 5/8/2025 by Justice Akintayo Aluko of the Federal High Court Lagos Division in Suit No. FHC/L/CS/1242/2025 Kepco v Ecobank & 9 Ors. This is a serious allegation against a Senior Advocate, that is, misrepresentation of facts in order to deceive the general public, and to possibly secure benefits for his clients and himself. While in contract law, misrepresentation can make a contract voidable, in criminal law, it is one of the elements used to establish fraudulent offences. See for example, Section 419 of the Criminal Code Act 1916 (CCA). Certainly, whether contractual or criminal, no Lawyer should be found misrepresenting anything.
While Kepco then issued a Rejoinder to Ogunba, SAN’s advertisement in This Day on 7/8/2025, Ogunba, SAN also followed with his own Rejoinder to Kepco’s, again in This Day on 8/8/2025.
Specific Allegations Levelled Against the Learned Senior Advocate
To be fair to both parties, I went out of my way to obtain and read the certified true copy of the Composite Ruling that Mr Ola-Daniels complained that Ogunba, SAN had misrepresented, and some other court processes, to ascertain the veracity of Mr Ola-Daniel’s allegations, and I was disappointed to discover that Ogunba, SAN, appears to have engaged in what we Lawyers call “Jankara Tactics” (in his advertisements), which simply means unethical or sharp practices.
1) My first question after reading the Composite Ruling was, if the court had ruled in favour of Ogunba, SAN, to carry on activities as the Receiver/Manager for Kepco, what then, was the need for Ground 10 of Ogunba, SAN’s Notice of Appeal against the aforementioned Composite Ruling, where he stated thus: “The learned lower Court Judge erred when he held that the Receiver/Manager should be restrained from taking any adverse steps even after recognising his appointment as a statutory one that cannot be restrained and consequently, occasioned a miscarriage of justice against the Appellants and their Receiver/Manager”? The said Ground 10 is a clear admission that Ogunba, SAN was: 1) restrained from taking any adverse steps against Kepco by the court; 2) was aware that he had been restrained; 3) he was dissatisfied with being restrained from acting as Receiver/Manager by the court’s ruling, and sought to appeal against it. Does it not therefore, constitute contempt of court, and a blatant disregard for the rule of law amongst other things, for Ogunba, SAN to then twist the ruling of the court on the pages of newspapers and go as far as doing the exact opposite of what the court ruled in his advertisements? As Lawyers, we are officers in the temple of justice, not injustice.
2) On page 36 of the Composite Ruling, the court held that “Since there is evidence before the court that the Receiver/Manager has been appointed, that act can no longer be restrained by the court”. But, that was only half of the story. The Judge did say on page 39 of the ruling, that Ogunba, SAN’s appointment as Receiver/Manager was still the subject of pending litigation. Though is trite that a court cannot grant an injunction restraining a completed act – see the case of AR Security Solution Ltd v EFCC (2018) LPELR-43828(SC) per Kumai Bayang Aka’ahs, JSC) where the Supreme Court held inter alia that, an injunction isn’t a remedy for an act that has already been carried out; it is also trite that with ample grounds, the appointment of a Receiver/Manager can be set aside. See the case of Brewtech Nig. Ltd v Akinnawo & Anor (2016) LPELR-40094(CA) per Yargata Byenchit Nimpar, JCA.
Ogunba, SAN, was economical with the facts. In his first advertisement, he misrepresented the facts, stating that the court affirmed his appointment as Receiver/Manager, as if to say the court confirmed it and said “Ride On”, thereby giving him a ‘Carte Blanche’ to act, and he then went ahead to exercise some functions of a Receiver/Manager in the said advertisement, when in actual fact, the court was constrained by established judicial precedent not to be able to set aside his appointment by an interlocutory application in such circumstances, and did the next best thing that the law permits by restraining him from exercising the functions of a Receiver/Manager, which was admitted by Ogunba, SAN in Ground 10 of his Notice of Appeal. Any Learned Senior Advocate would know that Ogunba, SAN’s appointment couldn’t have been set aside by a motion for interlocutory injunction, due to the fact his appointment is part of the subject-matter of the substantive suit. This would be tantamount to the court deciding the case at an interlocutory stage, before hearing the case and taking evidence; something that the judicial process abhors. In Agwu & Ors v Julius Berger (Nig) Plc (2019) LPELR-47625(SC) per John Inyang Okoro, JSC, the Supreme Court held inter alia that “….in determining an interlocutory application pending the trial of the substantive case, care should be taken not to make pronouncements which may prejudice the trial of claims filed and still pending before the court. To do otherwise, is to prejudge the matter in respect of which evidence is yet to be led”. Also see the case of Shanu v Afribank (Nig) Plc (2002) LPELR-3036 per Samson Odemwingie Uwaifo, JSC.
From the pronouncements in the Composite Ruling, one can see that Ogunba, SAN’s appointment is being disputed by Kepco in the substantive suit, on grounds such as 1) the debt which is the subject-matter of the dispute, isn’t due till 2034 (9 years time); 2) by the Banks’ own admission, the debt is being serviced by Kepco, even up to June 2025 when a payment was due; 3) due process wasn’t followed in making the said appointment.
What Ogunba, SAN also failed to disclose in his advertisements, is that the court granted the other prayers of Kepco, which restrain him from carrying out the functions of a Receiver/Manager, so presently, his appointment remains academic or theoretical. See Page 41 Orders (1) & (3) of the Composite Ruling. He cannot exercise the functions of a Receiver/Manager as he has purported to do by, for example, asking debtors and creditors to contact him and give him a statement of account. See Page 38-40 of the ruling, particularly page 40 paragraph 2 which states thus: “….it is better for the Receiver/Manager whose appointment is still a subject of litigation, not to engage in any act that is capable of destroying the res in this case. More justice will result in asking him not to act pursuant to his appointment, than to allow him to act…..”.
3) Let me break the Receiver scenario down, in simple terms. If you are already in London, it has long been firmly established that the courts cannot grant an interlocutory injunction restraining you from going to London, because you are already there! But, if they find out that you got to London on a fake visa, you will be deported. In the Kepco case, the court said “Ogunba, SAN, you are already in London, so you cannot be restrained from going there”. That’s just common sense, and not a proclamation that the court has sanctioned your trip to London. The court cannot also look into how you got to London by means of a motion for interlocutory injunction, because that is part of the subject-matter of the substantive suit. But, meanwhile, the court can restrain you from engaging in tourist or other activities in London, such as visiting Buckingham Palace, the British Museum, London Zoo, other places of interest. and from going shopping! And, this is just what Aluko J. did.
4) Another thing which I noted about Ogunba, SAN’s advertisement, is that his aforementioned Rejoinder, more particularly paragraph 6 thereof, mischievously sought to pass off his own words as the ruling of the court, thereby, misleading the public to further his own agenda. He stated thus: “The court in its ruling of 5th day of August, 2025 specifically held that “Relief 1(b) is refused” on the unassailable ground that the act: to wit:- “The appointment of a receiver/manager has been concluded thus necessitating the PUBLIC caveats subject matter of their ill-conceived REJOINDER”. Of course, it’s impossible for the court that ruled on 5/8/2025 to have commented in its ruling of 5/8/2025 on a rejoinder made on 8/8/2025, three days after its ruling. Ogunba, SAN, also forgot to mention the 2 other orders, (1) & (3), made in the Composite Ruling in favour of Kepco, obviously because they were against him and his clients. See Sections 15, 32 & 33 of the RPC.
Conclusion
At the end of the day, it is rather unfortunate that a Senior Advocate of Nigeria, should be engaging in Jankara Tactics, and for the whole world to see too. What example is he laying for Juniors? Unfortunately, a bad example!
The RPC is full of provisions, that prohibit Jankara Tactics. It’s time to enforce them effectively, to deter bad behaviour. It is also time to name and shame those who indulge in sharp practices, as this is the only way to sanitise our profession.
A Lawyer is expected to represent his client within the boundaries of the law – see Section 15 of the RPC. A Lawyer, being an officer of the court, shall not do anything to adversely affect the administration of justice, and must treat the court with respect, dignity and honour – see Sections 30 & 31 of the RPC. Section 32(3)(f) & (k) of the RPC prohibits a Lawyer from misquoting a decision of court, and behaving in an unworthy manner; surely this not only applies inside a court, but outside too. Section 33 of the RPC specifically prohibits a Lawyer engaged in the conduct of a matter, from inter alia, making extra-judicial statements that may interfere or be prejudicial to the fair trial of the matter. Some of these prohibitions, are reflected in Ogunba, SAN’s actions. Section 74(1) of the RPC provides that any Lawyer who contravenes Chapter 1 of the RPC, which comprises of Section 1-54, is liable to punishment under the Legal Practitioners Act 2004 (LPA).
The Advocate By Onikepo Braithwaite Onikepo.braithwaite@thisdaylive.com
Culled from thisdaylive.com
