No Route of Appeal, No Enforcement: What the Federal High Court Decided in Gadzama v Body of Benchers

On 28 September 2026, the Federal High Court in Abuja delivered judgment in a case that touches every lawyer in Nigeria: Joe-Kyari Gadzama, SAN v The Body of Benchers & 4 Ors (Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/1954/2026). The court, presided over by Obiora Atuegwu Egwuatu J, held that a disciplinary Direction of the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee (LPDC) cannot be enforced against a lawyer while there is no working route of appeal against it. The first reports of the judgment were broader than what the certified judgment appears to say, so this article sticks to the narrower and more reliable account.

What happened?

On 29 July 2026, the LPDC issued a Direction in Complaint No. BB/LPDC/1314/2024 suspending Mr Gadzama, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria, from legal practice for three years. Premium Times reported that the Committee also suspended another lawyer, Ocha Ulegede, for two years. Mr Gadzama went to the Federal High Court. He obtained leave to apply for judicial review on 20 August 2026 and then filed an originating summons. The judgment followed on 28 September, and the certified true copy was issued on 30 September, according to TheNigeriaLawyer's report of the judgment.

Background: the disciplinary case

The complaint arose from a long-running dispute over the money and legal representation connected to the Zaki-Biam litigation, in which victims of the 2001 military operation in Benue State obtained a N41.8 billion judgment in 2007. The case was later settled for N8 billion, and the settlement was adopted as a consent judgment by the Court of Appeal. Premium Times reported that the LPDC found Mr Gadzama guilty of professional misconduct, including taking over clients already represented by another lawyer, and continuing to act after some judgment creditors disowned him. Mr Gadzama has maintained that some of the judgment creditors instructed him, and his lawyers argued that nothing showed he forged, prepared or knew of any forged document.

An important point for readers: the Federal High Court did not decide whether those findings were right or wrong. The court itself recorded that Mr Gadzama did not come to court to relitigate the complaint or to challenge the findings of fact. His case was about something else entirely.

The key issue: an appeal route that no longer exists

Under section 12(7) of the Legal Practitioners Act, a lawyer against whom the LPDC issues a Direction could appeal directly to the Supreme Court within 28 days. As the Federal High Court recorded, the Supreme Court struck down that provision on 26 June 2026 in Ben Mene-Ejegi v Nigerian Bar Association & Anor. The court also recorded that the older Appeal Committee of the Body of Benchers was abolished by a 1994 Decree. When Mr Gadzama asked the Body of Benchers to constitute or operationalise an Appeal Committee, it replied by letter dated 13 August 2026 that no such Committee exists and that the Act does not provide for one.

The result, in the court's words as reported, was that there is no appellate remedy for the applicant. The question was therefore whether a three-year suspension can be enforced against a lawyer who has nowhere to appeal.

What the Constitution says

The court relied on section 36 of the 1999 Constitution (the fair hearing provision) and, in particular, section 36(2)(b). In simple terms, that provision allows a law to give an administrative authority the power to decide questions affecting people's civil rights, provided the law does not make that authority's decision final and conclusive. The court read this as a constitutional protection against administrative decisions being final with no appeal. A Direction that becomes unappealable in practice, it said, offends the provision.

The judge also asked a practical question: if an Appeal Committee is eventually set up and the lawyer succeeds on appeal, but only after he has served the suspension, where is his remedy? The court invoked the maxim ubi jus, ibi remedium (where there is a right, there is a remedy), and cited authorities including Ndukwe v LPDC, LPDC v Fawehinmi and Lau v PDP, as reported by TheNigeriaLawyer.

What the court actually decided

According to the report of the certified judgment, the court made three holdings: that the 29 July Direction is liable to judicial review; that implementing it where no effective appellate mechanism exists is not compatible with sections 36(1), 36(2) and 6(6)(b) of the Constitution; and that the court's supervisory jurisdiction justified declaratory and consequential reliefs.

It then made four orders. It declared enforcement of the Direction against Mr Gadzama, in the absence of an effective appellate mechanism, unconstitutional and unlawful. It restrained the respondents from implementing, publishing or giving effect to the Direction as it affects him until an Appeal Committee is put in place or another avenue of appeal is set up. It restrained the Chief Registrar of the Supreme Court from making any disciplinary notation against him in the meantime. And it restrained publication of the Direction as a final disciplinary determination. All other reliefs were refused, and no order was made as to costs.

What the court did not decide

This is where early coverage needs care. Several reports said the suspension was quashed or set aside, and one report, based on a statement from Mr Gadzama's legal team, said the court held that the LPDC lacked jurisdiction. TheNigeriaLawyer's account of the certified judgment is different. It reports that the order of certiorari (the order that would have quashed the Direction) falls within the reliefs that were refused, that the Direction therefore stands, and that the court did not hold the LPDC lacked jurisdiction. The jurisdiction the court did decide was its own: it held that the Body of Benchers is a federal agency, so a challenge of this kind belongs in the Federal High Court rather than a State or FCT High Court.

The published judgment PDF is a scanned image and could not be read directly in preparing this article, so it relies on TheNigeriaLawyer's detailed report of it. Readers who need to cite the decision should check the certified copy.

Why it matters

For law students, the case is a clear lesson in how section 36(2)(b) works and how the right to a remedy can limit the enforcement of a disciplinary sanction without disturbing the sanction's findings. For practitioners, the reasoning is not confined to one applicant. The court stressed that the Committee issued its Direction after the Supreme Court's June decision and with the Body of Benchers aware that no Appeal Committee existed. Other lawyers facing Directions in the same gap may well point to this decision, though each case will turn on its own facts and this is a first-instance decision that may be appealed.

Practical implications

The order is conditional by design. Once an Appeal Committee is constituted or another route of appeal is created, the restraint no longer applies by its own terms and the lawyer must use that route. The Direction has not been erased, and the findings of the LPDC have not been reviewed on their merits. The real fix is institutional or legislative: the Body of Benchers must establish a functioning appeal route, or the Legal Practitioners Act must be amended to provide one. Until then, the profession's disciplinary system can decide complaints but faces a constitutional obstacle in enforcing the results.

Key takeaway

A right to discipline is not a licence to make a decision final. Where the law provides no way to challenge a disciplinary Direction, a Nigerian court has now held that enforcing it offends the Constitution, at least until a route of appeal exists. The decision narrows how, not whether, lawyers can be disciplined.

Sources

TheNigeriaLawyer, "LPDC Direction Against Gadzama, SAN, Cannot Be Enforced Without Effective Appeal" (1 October 2026), reporting the judgment in Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/1954/2026.

Premium Times, "Court declares LPDC's decision suspending senior lawyer Gadzama from legal practice unconstitutional" (29 September 2026).

Blueprint, Lawyard and TheWillNews reports of the judgment (29 September to 1 October 2026), used for corroboration of the core outcome.

Note: no law-report citation for Ben Mene-Ejegi v NBA & Anor was available, so none is given.