had agreed to pay the Appellant 15 percent of the recovered sum as his professional fees. This led the Appellant to commence Suit No: ID/1116/2010 against SKIV for recovery of the debt. The Respondent later on instructed the Appellant to enter appearance for it in Suit No: LD/1693/2011 where the said SKIV Concepts Nigeria Ltd was suing the Respondent for unlawful debit entry in connection with the debt owed.
Whether the Appellant as Legal Practitioner acting for the Respondent in Suit No: LD/1693/2010 is entitled to claim for the administrative charges and costs incurred by him while acting as legal practitioner in the suit as distinct and separate from the professional fees charged by him for the legal services rendered in defence of the suit.
Appellant’s counsel submitted that since the trial Court found that the Appellant meticulously rendered services towards the recovery of the debt before he was debriefed by the Respondent and also that the Appellant complied with Section 16 of the Legal Practitioners Act, the trial Court ought to have granted the Appellant’s claim on quantum meruit.
In arguing issue three, Appellant’s counsel submitted that since the trial Court held the Appellant carried out some services for the Respondent based on the Respondent’s instruction, then the trial Court ought not to have awarded the sum of N750,000.00 which is too low. On issue three, Respondent counsel submitted that reasonable compensation deserving of quantum meruit claim is not determined by the means which the Claimant used in doing such work but by the very nature of the work.