MK Abdulkadir & CO

26/01/2026

LEGAL MONDAY 💼⚖️

Hey guys, it’s another Legal Monday!

Today, we are discussing the legal maxim:

*Ignorantia juris non excusat*
*Ignorance of the law is no excuse.*

This maxim simply means that not knowing the law does not free a person from legal responsibility.

Our attention was drawn to the recent sensational case of Mr. Ojo, whose bank account with First Bank was allegedly erroneously credited with the sum of ₦1.5 billion. Efforts were reportedly made to recover the money, but he refused to refund it.

Following the intervention of the EFCC, he was charged to court, where he pleaded guilty.
The court subsequently sentenced him to one year imprisonment or an option of a ₦5 million fine, and also ordered the refund of ₦272 million, being the amount unlawfully converted by him.

This naturally raises very important questions:
👉 Can you lawfully spend money that was erroneously transferred into your bank account?
👉 Why will spending such money land you in prison?

The answer is straightforward.
When money enters your bank account by mistake, the law does not see it as a blessing.
It is regarded as a *temporary trust* that must be returned to the rightful owner.

In simple terms:
Saying “I didn’t know I had to return it” does not protect you from liability.

The legal position is clear:
• Money paid into your account by mistake does not become yours.
• Spending it may amount to criminal misappropriation, obtaining by false pretence, or stealing, depending on the circumstances.
• Even after pleading guilty, the court can still order you to refund the money.

Key takeaway:
Prison term does not legalise wrongly received money.
Punishment and refund can go hand in hand.

📌 If you receive an unexpected credit, report it immediately.
Silence is not innocence.
Be vigilant.
Stay aware.
Know the law.

14/01/2026

Many disputes start with simple misunderstandings.
Contracts are not just legal documents, they are protection tools.

Before you agree, pay, or sign, ensure you understand what you are committing to.

Today we will be looking at some of the myths people have about contracts.

What is the weirdest myth you have heard about contracts. Let's have it.

13/01/2026

Legal position where there is no written agreement

13/01/2026

📌 WHY EVERY TRANSACTION SHOULD BE PUT IN WRITING

A few days ago, while we were at the police station for the case of a client, a matter was brought to the police station. The story goes thus:

Mr. A who deals in purchase and installation of solar systems for individuals and corporate organisations was engaged by Mr. B to supply and install a solar system for his residence at an agreed sum of ₦1,000,000.00 which was paid in full.

The system was delivered and installed. However, about one week later, the system developed faults.
Mr. B reported the issue and requested that it be repaired or replaced.
Mr. A declined. Mr B in a bid to recover the contract sum reported the matter to the police.

The challenge that arose was this:
There was no written contract stating:
a. The specifications or quality of the solar system
b. Whether any warranty applied
c. The parties’ obligations in the event of a fault
d. Whether repair, replacement, or refund was contemplated

What then Is the Legal Position in situations like this?

It is important to note that the law recognises oral contracts.
Accordingly, Mr. B is not entirely without remedies.
He may rely on:
1. Proof of payment
2. Electronic communications such as WhatsApp messages and call records.
3. Testimony of persons who witnessed the transaction
4. The implied legal obligation to supply goods that are fit for their intended purpose

On this basis, he may seek remedies such as:
1. Repair, replacement, or refund (as may be appropriate), and
2. Damages for breach of contract.

The Practical reality is that
While remedies may exist, the burden of proof is significantly heavier where there is no written agreement.

In the absence of a written contract, disputes often turn into one party’s word against the other.
Establishing the exact terms agreed upon becomes more complex, time-consuming, and uncertain.

Why Written Contracts Matter (For All Parties)

A properly drafted written contract:
1. Clearly defines the rights and obligations of the parties
2. Makes enforcement easier and more predictable
3. Reduces disputes arising from misunderstandings
4. Protects both the service provider and the customer
5. Encourages lawful and orderly dispute resolution

A written contract is not an expression of distrust.
It is a tool for clarity, protection, and accountability.

Seeking legal guidance before disputes arise is often more effective than attempting to resolve issues after they have occurred.

Note:This publication is for general information and does not constitute legal advice.

12/01/2026

LEGAL MONDAY!!!

Hi guys, it is another Monday to go get it 💪🏽💪🏽

As we step into a new week, here’s a gentle reminder:

Justice isn’t only about resolving disputes when things go wrong. Justice is about doing things right from the very beginning. Self-help is never the answer.

Legal guidance isn’t something to seek only in crisis, it is a tool for prevention, protection, and sustainable growth.
Every smart business prepares ahead.
This week, do justice to your business.
Give it the legal backing it truly deserves.

💬 Food for thought:
Are you currently doing justice to your business, Do you currently have a lawyer involved in your business decisions and transactions, or do you only seek legal help when issues arise?

⚖️ Wishing you a productive and profitable week.

08/12/2025

The foundation of any great legal system rests on a terrifyingly bold principle: "Fiat justitia, ruat caelum."
This Latin maxim, meaning “Let justice be done, though the heavens fall,” is the ultimate promise of the law. Yet, over the centuries, it has been refined into a more practical, human-centered doctrine—a doctrine that serves as the true bedrock of public trust:

"Justice must not only be done, but must be seen to be done."
This is not just legal poetry; it’s a non-negotiable command that shook the world in a seemingly ordinary traffic case.

In 1924, the English courts shook the legal world with one simple statement that has since echoed across centuries and constitutions:

👉 “Justice must not only be done, but must be seen to be done.”

It emerged in the landmark case R v. Sussex Justices, ex parte McCarthy.
The facts were quite ordinary, a case of a motor accident, a prosecution, and a magistrate’s court. But then, something unusual surfaced.

⚖️ The clerk assisting the magistrates was also a member of the law firm acting for the opposing party in civil proceedings connected to the same matter.
No proof of bias. No wrongdoing.
Yet, the court set the decision aside.

Why?

Because even the shadow of bias, even the slightest hint that justice might have been influenced — was unacceptable.

💡It wasn’t about what happened behind the bench.
It was about what the public perceived happened.

📍Fast Forward to Nigeria…

Our courts have embraced and reinforced this sacred doctrine across decades and constitutions.
Section 36 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) places fair hearing at the heart of justice in Nigeria — not as decoration, but as a fundamental, non-negotiable right.

In Deduwa v. Okorodudu (1976), the Supreme Court firmly aligned with the McCarthy principle, holding that justice must be conducted in a manner visible, transparent, and reassuring to the ordinary observer.

More recently, the Court of Appeal in Shola v. Ofili (2020) reiterated that the true test of fair hearing is not what the judge believes happened…
…but what a reasonable person watching from the gallery would conclude.

🎯 Why It Still Matters Today

In a world where:

courtrooms are open to the public,

proceedings are recorded,

judgments are reported,

and public trust is essential,

⚖️ Justice must wear clarity as a garment.
Not suspicion.
Not secrecy.

Whether in Ilorin, Lagos, Abuja, or any courtroom across Nigeria, justice must be: ✔️ fair,
✔️ impartial, and
✔️ visibly so.

Because the law does not only punish wrongdoing,
it protects confidence in the system.

🗣️ Your Thoughts?

Should courts place greater emphasis on perception just as much as substance of judgment?

Drop your comments 👇
Let’s talk justice that can be seen, trusted, and believed.

06/12/2025

Litigation Diary: A Courtroom Moment Worth Sharing 🌹

Some days in court come with quiet lessons, lessons that remind us why every detail in advocacy matters.

During the week, we were in court minding our business waiting for our case to be called and listened as a witness completed their evidence-in-chief. The adverse counsel Counsel took his turn and carried out a thorough cross-examination. Everything seemed steady, until something interesting happened.

When it was time for re-examination, the counsel who brought the witness attempted to ask one more question, one that touched on an issue raised during cross-examination. Immediately, the opposing counsel objected:

“My Lord, re-examination is only to clear ambiguities!”

A familiar line. One we all hear often in court.

But here’s the part many forget…

With the enactment of the Evidence Act 2011, by the provision of Section 215(3), re-examination is now used to

✨ Explain matters referred to in cross-examination
✨ Even introducing NEW matters— with the court’s permission

And where new matters arise, the other side gets the opportunity to further cross-examine.

In today’s case however, the counsel withdrew his re examination question upon the objection by the adverse counsel.

But the moment remained a beautiful reminder of something important:

👉 Re-examination is not a formality. It is strategy. It is rescue. It is clarity and It is an opportunity, when used well.

Every courtroom moment teaches, and we are always learning.

💬 Question for our colleagues, friends, and courtroom lovers:

Have you noticed that re-examination is slowly becoming a “lost art”?
Or are counsel simply being cautious to avoid objection?

Share your experience. Let’s learn together.

— M.K. Abdulkadir & Co

08/06/2025

TAQOBBALALLOHU MINNA WA MINKUM. EID UL MUBAROK.

16/05/2025

Every citizen deserves to know what the law says about arrest—whether it's lawful or unlawful.

This week, we’re breaking down the key rights you have during arrest under the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) 2015.

From understanding your right to remain silent, to knowing what constitutes an unlawful arrest, our goal is simple:
To empower you with the legal knowledge that can protect you or someone you know.

Here are series of frequently asked questions (FAQs) with direct answers backed by the law.

Your rights are real.

Follow for more legal insights!

05/11/2022

29/10/2022