The issue for determination in this case was whether the Supreme Court could entertain appeals against directions of the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee, contrary to prevailing case laws. The Supreme Court after much deliberation and consideration dismissed the appeal. It held that the argument made by Counsel was captivating. The previous law of the Legal Practitioners (Amendment) Decree No. 21 of 1994 had not been expressly repealed, and as such the Supreme Court had jurisdiction to hear appeals on directions of the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee.

The Panel of Justices however held that the position of the law was that where there are two existing laws governing the same area of law, but there was a conflict between the two laws and it would be impossible to reconcile an interpretation of the two laws, the later law would prevail over the earlier law. The Panel of Justices came to the conclusion that Section 12 of Cap L11 2004 LFN in re-establishing the Appeals Committee and granting it exclusive jurisdiction over appeals from directions of the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee, impliedly repealed the former law of the Legal Practitioners (Amendment) Decree No. 21 of 1994, which stripped the Supreme Court of any jurisdiction to hear appeals from directions of the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee.

BA LAW LLP acted for the Appellant