The Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee (LPDC) has adjourned the hearing of a petition alleging misconduct against Ikechukwu Ezechukwu (SAN) and two other lawyers until July 29.

The adjournment followed the committee’s rejection of an application by D. O. Okolo, counsel to Mr Ezechukwu, seeking the dismissal of the petition on the grounds that Kingsley Aneubuna, who filed the petition, had indicated an intention to withdraw it.

Mr Okolo argued that the petitioner had decided to withdraw the matter and was aware of the proceedings, but failed to appear before the panel.

Documents made available to journalists showed that Mr Aneubuna had filed the petition against Mr Ezechukwu, Smart Ukpanah, and Hope Onyekwere over alleged professional misconduct.

The petition accused the trio of professional misconduct, criminal misrepresentation, forgery, and perjury.

At the sitting of the committee, chaired by Kalu Umeh, Mr Okolo urged the panel to dismiss the petition.

“The petitioner forwarded a letter notifying the committee of his intention to withdraw the petition; the petitioner is very much aware of the proceedings but is not before the panel,” he said.

In his ruling, the chairman rejected the application, stating that the committee’s rules did not permit the withdrawal of petitions once issues had been joined.

“Since issues have been joined, we are obligated by the rules of this committee to adopt the processes filed by the petitioner,” Mr Umeh said.

The panel subsequently adjourned the matter until July 29 for a definite hearing.

The petition arose from a disputed property transaction involving Ngozika Nwaneri, Uche Okoli and Multi Shelters Limited.

The dispute is connected to Suit No. FCT/HC/CV/1182/2018 concerning 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 Mr Okoli and Multi Shelters Ltd for N51 million.

Before making payment, the petitioner and her lawyer allegedly sought clarification from Mr Ezechukwu regarding the status of the property and were assured that it had a clean, unencumbered title.

The petition stated that relying on those assurances, the petitioner accepted the offer, made the required payments, and executed an agreement for the transaction.

The petition stated that the house was expected to be completed within about two years, during which the petitioner was to complete all payments.

The petitioner said she later observed a slow pace of work and sought an explanation but was allegedly assured that the property would still be delivered within the agreed timeline.

In 2021, the petitioner allegedly discovered that the property was already the subject of litigation in Suit No. FCT/HC/CV/1182/2018, filed in March 2018.

The petition further alleged that Justice Hussein Yusuf granted an injunction in the matter in 2018.

The petitioner also alleged that Mr Ukpanah, without her knowledge or consent, joined her as a co-claimant in the suit, filed court processes, and represented her and other subscribers without authorisation.

It was further alleged that Ms Onyekwere testified in court on behalf of the petitioner and others without their knowledge or authorisation.

The petition also accused Mr Ezechukwu of presenting a forged version of the agreement between his clients and the petitioner, alleging that the document bore a forged signature and was backdated to 2012, rather than 2018, when the genuine agreement was executed.

The petitioner maintained that both the forged and genuine agreements were prepared by Mr Ezechukwu, who allegedly knew that litigation over the property was already pending in 2018 when the property was sold.

The petition further alleged that the petitioner paid for the property based on fraudulent misrepresentations by Ezechukwu and his clients.

The petitioner later engaged another lawyer to have her name struck out of the suit and subsequently filed Petition No. BB/LPDC/760/2022 against the respondents.

The petitioner urged the LPDC to investigate the respondents, all of whom are legal practitioners called to the Nigerian Bar, for alleged misconduct.

(NAN)