A petitioner at the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee (LPDC), Chief Maduabuchi Okafor, has raised concerns over the defendant, Chief Vincent Okey Udah’s corrupt antecedent as lawyer a lawyer, who was disrobed and prohibited from practising as a solicitor in the United Kingdom.
Chief Okafor raised the concern in a memo made available to News Band on Saturday ahead of the judgment of the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee (LPDC) in Abuja coming up on September 4, 2023.
Okafor, it could be noted, dragged Udah before the Body of Benchers sitting at the LPDC over allegations of legal malpractices.
A quick throwback into the antecedents of Udah as lawyer in the United Kingdom that led to his disrobement will suffice.
Okey Udah was arraigned as a solicitor practising as Okey Udah & Co before England and Wales High Court (Chancery Division) in a case “The Law Society of England and Wales v Habitable Concepts Ltd & Anor” in 2010, where it was proved that between 6 November 2007 and 27 November 2007, he committed “large-scale mortgage fraud” to the tune of £5,779,166, after which “Udah fled and has never been located”.
The court judgement, wherein it was held that one Mr. Onyekechi Onuiri dishonestly assisted in a breach of trust by Okey Udah’s law firm, Okey Udah & Co, signed by Mr. Justice Norris, dated 21 June 2010, and sighted by News Band, stated as follows:
“The Law Society intervened in the Practice on 10 January 2008. It discovered that the Practice had (over a very short period) been involved in large-scale mortgage fraud.
“The fraud was of the simplest kind. The Practice represented that it was acting on behalf of intending purchasers or remortgagors. The transactions were not genuine. Mortgage applications were submitted by a broker, and the Practice was retained to act for the lender.
“The Practice completed the requisite mortgage conveyancing forms and in due course received the mortgage advance. It appropriated the advance.
“The evidence establishes that between 23 October 2007 and 27 November 2007 the Practice collected in 27 mortgage advances totalling £5,779,166 from lenders, none of which was applied in completion of the transaction in respect of which the advance had been made.
“By 27 November 2007 the client account of the Practice contained only 135,277. Mr Okey Udah fled and has never been located.
“The ground for the intervention was that stated in paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 to the Solicitors Act 1974 (“the 1974 Act”). Paragraph 6(1) of Schedule 1 to the 1974 Act empowers the Law Society to pass a resolution that any sums of money (and the right to recover or receive them) to which the paragraph applies should vest in the Society.
“Where the ground for intervention is (as here) that stated in paragraph 1 of the Schedule, the vesting resolution under paragraph 6(1) relates to all sums of money held by or on behalf of the solicitor in connection with his practice.
“The Society passed the relevant resolution on 10 January 2008. In that right, the Society commenced proceedings to recover money paid into the client account of the Practice by the lenders and then paid out. It is proved that between 6 November 2007 and 27 November 2007, 4,698,484 was paid out of the client account of the Practice.
“The matter before me is the trial of the Society’s claim against Habitable Concepts Ltd (“Habitable”) and its sole shareholder and director Mr. Onyekechi Onuiri (“Mr Onuiri”). The case against them is:
(a) that on 22 November 2007 the Practice paid £450,150 out of its client account to Habitable;
(b) that that payment was made out of money received from mortgage advances;
(c) that those monies were held by the Practice on trust for the lenders whose advances funded the payment;
(d) that in receiving those monies Habitable was knowingly receiving payments made in breach of trust;
(e) alternatively, that in receiving those monies Habitable was dishonestly assisting the Practice in a breach of trust;
(f) that in consequence Habitable is liable to account as constructive trustee of the monies so received and the Society is entitled to trace in equity into any identifiable proceeds of the payment;
(g) That in addition the Society can pursue against Habitable a claim for money had and received and can also seek damages for conspiracy;
(h) That the circumstances are such that the Court can pierce the corporate veil of Habitable and grant direct personal judgment against Mr Onuiri (or alternatively that Mr Onuiri himself dishonestly assisted in a breach of trust).”
In the judgement, the judge ruled as follows:
“This conclusion is reinforced by the terms of Mr Onuiri’s own pleading. Paragraph 11 of the Defence says that the reason for the payment is to be found in the Affidavit. I have already summarised the reasons and indicated that they did not cause me to doubt the soundness of the inferences I was prepared to draw from approved facts.
“In the present context I find paragraph 4.5 of the Affidavit illuminating. In it Mr Onuiri records an awareness of what he describes as “the fact that Nigerians have a reputation in business of doing things unlawfully” and that “with this in mind and given the amount involved [he] said that [he] did not want any “dodgy money”…
“If this was his admitted state of mind, I consider that the conclusion I am prepared to draw from other material is even more soundly based.
“I accordingly find and hold that Mr. Onuiri dishonestly assisted in a breach of trust by the Practice and is liable to account as constructive trustee for the 450,150 which was the subject of the relevant bank credit.
“Both Habitable and Mr. Onuiri are liable to account as constructive trustees for the sum of £450,150. That sum will bear compound interest in equity with half-yearly rests.
“Subject to any submissions made on handing down judgment, the period will commence on 23 November 2007 and continue until repayment is made. The rate will be 5%. 31.
“These conclusions render it unnecessary to examine the common law claims for money had and received or for damages for conspiracy. 32. I have considered the proper exercise of my jurisdiction in relation to the cost of this action.
“In particular I have considered whether there is anything in the constitution of the action or the nature of the claim advanced by the Society or in its conduct of the case which should cause me to depart from the general rule set out in CPR 44.3(2).
“I have concluded that there is not. I will therefore order Habitable and Mr Onuiri to pay the Society’s costs of this action (save insofar as already provided for and save in so far as they relate to defendants who were not served or against whom proceedings have been discontinued).”
As noted in the judgement, the court ruling describes “the fact that Nigerians have a reputation in business of doing things unlawfully”, thanks to Udah’s fraudulent behaviour.
A further probe into the career of “Vincent Okey Udah” at the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) in the United Kingdom revealed that he was actually “Struck off from 22/09/2009”.
The result of the investigation at SRA reads as follows:
Vincent Okey Udah
Prohibited
We have prohibited this person from practising as a solicitor.
Prohibited: Struck off from 22/09/2009.
Type of lawyer: Solicitor
Regulator: Solicitors Regulation Authority
SRA number: 370928
Regulatory record: No decisions published. Read our decision publication policy.
Prior to his conviction in the United Kingdom, Udah fled and relocated his corrupt practice to Nigeria but it was not long before nemesis caught up with him as he soon found himself facing another disciplinary committee with the Body Of Benchers at the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee.
News Band obtained a publication made by The Punch on Thursday, June 22, 2023 which confirmed the claim that he was dragged before the Disciplinary Committee which had set a date for adjudication on July 13, 2023:
The matter, however, was adjourned as the Committee announced that some more findings were necessary in the matter.
Based on such antecedents, Chief Okafor expressed concerns over the extent Udah may go to compromise the judiciary in order to obtain favourable judgement on Monday.
“A man like that can do anything to get whatever he wants going by his previous records,” he said.
The development comes as the “All Eyes On The Judiciary” slogan is trending across the country as the judgement of the Presidential Election Petition Court (PEPC) over the 2023 presidential election is nervously anticipated.
In this case, it will be “All eyes on Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee” in Abuja ahead of the judgment coming up on Monday, September 4, 2023. Read more.
—