Hon. Justice Olufunke Anuwe of the Abuja Judicial Division of the National Industrial Court has dismissed the case filed by one Kolade against her employer, a law firm, seeking to compel the firm to pay her Annual Practicing Fees, for lacking merit in its entirety.
The Court ruled that in the absence of an express term in the contract mandating the law firm to pay the Annual Practicing Fees of the lawyers under its employment, such action is simply an act of magnanimity of the law firm and not borne out of any statutory responsibility, and such payment cannot transform into an enforceable obligation against the law firm.
From facts, the claimant- Kolade, had asked for determination whether, having regard to the combined effect of Sections 8(1) and (2) of the Legal Practitioners Act, and Rules 9, 11, and 12 of the Rules of Professional Conduct for Legal Practitioners 2023, a law firm that engages legal practitioners as full-time employees and derives exclusive commercial benefit from the legal services they render in the firm’s name and on its behalf, is under a legal obligation to bear the financial responsibility for the payment of their Annual Practicing Fees, being fees that constitute a condition precedent to the issuance and renewal of their Annual Practicing Certificates, without which the firm cannot lawfully earn professional fees from their services.
Likewise, an order directing the law firm to bear the financial responsibility for the payment of her Annual Practising Fees throughout the duration of her employment with the law firm.
In defence, the defendant- Olanipekun LP argued that the Legal Practitioners Act imposes the duty to pay Annual Practicing Fees on individual lawyers alone, and that no statute requires an employer, including a law firm, to assume that obligation. He stated that Kolade would still have paid her Annual Practicing Fees personally if she were not an employee of the firm.
In addition to salary, the law firm contended that the firm also provides a quarterly bonus and end-of-the-year benefits to Kolade, and that the relationship between Kolade and the law firm is contractual and based on the terms mutually agreed to between the parties, and the parties did not at any time agree that the Defendant will bear the responsibility of paying Kolade’s Annual Practicing Fees.
In opposition, Kolade’s counsel, Tunde Adejumo Esq, argued that the Annual Practicing Fees her client had paid were to enable her to render services for the law firm, that is, the law firm that receives professional fees, retainer income, and commercial rewards on account of her labour.
Learned Counsel posited it as unjust, inequitable and unfair for the law firm to earn legal fees from the services his client renders, but abdicating responsibility for the statutory and financial obligations that enable her client to provide such service legally, and the fact that the law firm benefits from her client’s practice makes it equitable for the employer to bear the cost.
Counsel urged the Court to hold that the employer should bear the financial burden tied to his client’s professional qualification.
Replying on points of law, counsel to the defendant, Adekunle Olanipekun, with Joel Ogbonanya, submitted that Kolade relied on no statutory authority transferring the duty of payment of Practicing Fees to the employer and that the Court could not imply a contractual term that contradicts clear statutory provisions.
In a well-considered judgment, the Presiding judge, Justice Olufunke Anuwe, stated that the Legal Practitioners Act and the Rules of Professional Conduct place the responsibility to pay practicing fees strictly on the individual lawyer seeking to practice.
The Court held that in the absence of any statutory obligation imposed on the employer to pay the legal practitioner’s APF, the only other way the employer of a legal practitioner can be under the obligation to pay the legal practitioner’s APF is where it is agreed in the employment contract for the employer to pay the legal practitioner’s APF.
Justice Anuwe maintained that Kolade did not place anything before the Court to show that the defendant had a legal or contractual obligation to pay her practicing fees, noting that the Court cannot rewrite or expand the terms of an oral contract to impose duties contrary to statute.
The Court further stressed that since no statute or term of the employment placed the burden of paying practicing fees on the employer, there was no legal foundation upon which the claimant’s case could stand.
