Hon. Justice Olufunke Anuwe of the Abuja Judicial Division of the National Industrial Court has dismissed, in its entirety, the suit filed by Kolade against her employer, a law firm, seeking to compel the firm to pay her Annual Practising Fees (APF). The Court held that the claim was devoid of merit.
In her judgment, Justice Anuwe ruled that absent an express contractual term mandating the employer to bear the cost of APF, any payment made by a law firm on behalf of its lawyers is an act of benevolence and not a statutory obligation. Such voluntary practice, the Court stressed, cannot crystallise into an enforceable legal duty against the employer.
The claimant argued that, by virtue of Sections 8(1) and (2) of the Legal Practitioners Act and Rules 9, 11, and 12 of the Rules of Professional Conduct for Legal Practitioners 2023, a law firm that engages lawyers as full‑time employees and derives commercial benefit from their services is legally bound to pay their APF. She contended that the fees are a condition precedent to the issuance and renewal of practising certificates, without which the firm cannot lawfully earn professional fees.
Kolade sought an order directing the firm to assume responsibility for her APF throughout her employment.
The defendant, Olanipekun LP, argued that the Legal Practitioners Act imposes the duty to pay APF solely on individual lawyers, and no statute transfers that obligation to employers. The firm maintained that Kolade would have been required to pay her APF personally even if she were not employed. It further noted that beyond salary, the claimant enjoyed quarterly bonuses and end‑of‑year benefits, and at no time did the parties agree that the firm would bear her APF.
Kolade’s counsel, Tunde Adejumo Esq, argued that since the law firm reaps professional fees and commercial rewards from her services, it is inequitable for the firm to abdicate responsibility for the statutory fees that enable her to practise. He urged the Court to hold that the employer should bear the financial burden tied to her professional qualification.
In a well‑considered judgment, Justice Anuwe held that both the Legal Practitioners Act and the Rules of Professional Conduct place the responsibility for APF squarely on the individual lawyer. The Court emphasised that unless expressly provided for in an employment contract, no statutory or contractual obligation exists requiring a law firm to pay APF on behalf of its lawyers.
The Court further noted that Kolade failed to produce evidence of any contractual agreement imposing such a duty on the defendant. Justice Anuwe reiterated that the Court cannot rewrite or expand the terms of an oral contract to impose obligations contrary to statute.
Accordingly, the Court concluded that there was no legal foundation for the claimant’s case, and it was dismissed in its entirety.
