Principle Statement

It is not the charge forwarded to the respondent that gives it jurisdiction to try a legal practitioner against whom a complaint is made, but section 10(1)(b) of the Legal Practitioners Act.

Ratio Decidendi (Source)

Per Uwais, CJN, in Okike v. LPDC (2005) NLC-582004(SC) at p. 23; Paras Eā€“A.

"It can be seen that it is not the charge forwarded to the respondent that gives it jurisdiction to 'try' a legal practitioner against whom a complaint is made, but section 10(1) (b) of the Legal Practitioners Act."
View Judgment ā†’

Explanation / Scope

The Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee’s jurisdiction derives from section 10(1)(b) of the Legal Practitioners Act, not from the forwarded charge. The charge merely initiates the process; the statute confers jurisdiction. The principle applies to legal profession regulation. The rule ensures the Committee’s authority is grounded in statutory law. Jurisdiction exists independently of the specific charge’s content. The enabling statute defines the scope of disciplinary power.

Cases Applying This Principle

Charles Okike v. The Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee