Ex-Convict [Barr. Ikeyi] Unfit for SANship, Lawyer sues CJN, AGF, NBA, BB

In a suit no: FHC/PH/CS/ 586/2016, dated August 10, 2016 a copy made available to 247ureports.com, the Plaintiff Barr. Nnaji, in motion on notice and originating summons, pleaded with the court to restrain Barr. Ikeyi from being inaugurated, sworn in, recognized or accepted as one of the Senior Advocates of Nigeria, SAN, to be conferred with such honour.

Nnaji points out that Ikeyi is not qualified to be conferred with the prestigious honour as SAN because he, Ikeyi, has not met with the requisite qualification for nomination into such legal rank.

According to Nnaji, Ikeyi’s qualification leaves much to be desired because his conduct as a legal practitioner is “highly questionable,” pointing out that Ikeyi was once “chastised and for ‘borrowing’ briefs of argument from a layman and person described as a crank by same apex court so doing to be able to qualify to apply for the rank of a Senior of Advocate of Nigeria, SAN, of not only in one case but in two cases.

The plaintiff posited that the Ist Defendant in the suit, Ikeyi, was not qualified in the first place, not to talk of being conferred with such rank of SAN.

He, therefore, sought in his five-point relief that Ikeyi is not fit and a proper person to be conferred with the prestigious rank by the other defendants in the suit.

The legal practitioner therefore, pleaded for an order of interlocutory injunction restraining the 1st defendant/respondent from “parading himself as a Senior Advocate of Nigeria pending the hearing and determination of the substantive suit.”

Nnaji equally sought an order of interlocutory injunction restraining the rest of the respondents, their servants, agents, personal representatives and/ any person(s) claiming through or under them from dealing or having anything to do with the 1st defendant/respondent, Ikeyi in any form or manner and for any reason(s) as a Senior Advocate of Nigeria, SAN, pending the hearing and determination of the substantive suit.

However, in a 29 paragraphs affidavit and eight exhibits in supports of his case, the Plaintiff stated that the 1^st Defendant/ Applicant, Barr. James O. N Ikeyi in 2007 deceived an Enugu High Court sitting at Agbani to issue a bench warrant in a suit No. HAGB/8c/2007 against a fellow lawyer on a political trial which was not brought to his knowledge and falsely claimed to have secured the Attorney General of Enugu State fiat to prosecute while he never had any.

“It was after the deceit of November, 2007 by the 1^st defendant that he went to his younger brother then the AG to obtain a fiat dated 10^th day of December, 2007.

“That it was on the strength of complaint logged to the office the Chief Judge of the state that the bench warrant was vacated a year after and the case transferred to CJ’s court in March 2008”.

The plaintiff Nnaji stated that apart from deceit, the 1^st Defendant was an ex-convict. “J. O. N Ikeyi was convicted by the Enugu State Chief Judge for his unruly behavior on 16^th day of May, 2011 in suit No. E/394/2010 between HI-TECH SEC. LTD vs U.N.T.H. Till date, there is no order reversing same.”

He noted that in accordance with the guidelines for the conferment of the prestigious rank of a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), to any legal practitioner in Nigeria “integrity has the highest mark of 25% while general knowledge of the law has the second highest of 15% totaling 40% of the total mark of 100%.

“The 1^st Defendant having lost 40% of the 100% mark on the strength of his conviction in May 2011, and his adoption of a layman’s brief of argument in 2011 as a way to get more cases in his favour at the Supreme Court to advance his chance of being conferred the prestigious rank of SAN”, is unfit and proper person to receive such honour.

Efforts to get Ikeyi and the 1st respondent reaction failed as he rejected several calls put to his phone.

Meanwhile, the court has granted the Plaintiff application for substituted service on the 1^st Defendant even as the court has fixed 13^th September, 2016 for hearing and determination of the interlocutory injunction.