Ruling vs. Judgment: When Labels Don't Limit the Law (The Case of Banire v. Onah)

In the world of legal technicalities, words usually act as rigid boundaries. However, a landmark decision by the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee (LPDC) recently reminded the legal community that the law prioritizes substance over semantics. The petition, BB/LPDC/513/2021, centered on a provocative question: Is it professional misconduct to call a "Ruling" a "Judgment"?

The Bone of Contention

The dispute began when Dr. Muiz Adeyemi Banire, SAN (the Applicant), filed a complaint against Abah Onah, Esq. (the Respondent).

The allegation was serious: Fraudulent Misrepresentation. The Applicant contended that Onah, acting as a Receiver/Manager, instructed a solicitor to register a document at the Lagos State Lands Registry. While the document was officially titled a "Ruling" by the Federal High Court, Onah's letter of instruction referred to it as a "Judgment."

The Applicant's Argument:

• By labeling a Ruling as a Judgment, the Respondent allegedly misled the Registrar of Titles.

• This act was framed as a manifest desire to deceive, violating Rule 15(3) of the Rules of Professional Conduct (2007).

• The Applicant claimed this was a "smuggling" operation to register unregistered survey plans.

The Defense: Substance Over Form

Represented by Sir Ejeta Otuoniyo, the Respondent argued that the fuss over the title was legally misplaced. The defense rested on the nature of the court's decision rather than its heading.

• Finality: The "Ruling" in question (delivered by Hon. Justice Obiozor) was a "considered ruling" that finally determined the rights of the parties regarding charged assets.

• Legal Precedent: Citing Akinsanya v. UBA Ltd (1986), the defense argued that the substance of a decision determines whether it is a Judgment, not its title.

• No Intent to Deceive: The Respondent maintained he verily believed the Ruling was a final judgment in nature.

The LPDC’s Verdict: Falsa Demonstratio Non Nocet

The Committee, led by Hon. Justice Obietonbara O. Daniel-Kalio, dismissed the allegations of misconduct. Their reasoning provides a masterclass in legal interpretation. 

1. The Power of the Maxim

   The Committee invoked the legal maxim "Falsa demonstratio non nocet"—a false description does not deviate or vitiate.

   "An erroneous description of a person or thing does not necessarily destroy the effect of an instrument. That a table is labeled a chair, for example, does not make the table a chair simply because it is labeled as a chair."

2. The Test of Finality

   Following the "Bozson Test," the Committee asked: Does the order finally dispose of the rights of the parties? Because Justice Obiozor’s Ruling determined that the parties had no locus standi or legal capacity regarding the assets, it was, for all intents and purposes, a final order.

3. Statutory Context

   The Committee clarified that Section 58 of the Lagos State Lands Registration Law does not restrict registration to documents strictly titled "Judgment." Since the law allows for the registration of "every document of interest or title to land," the Ruling qualified perfectly.

Key Takeaways for Legal Practitioners

Principle	LPDC Finding
Nomenclature	The Committee held that the substance of a Court's decision, not its form or title, determines whether it is a Judgment or Ruling. If an order finally disposes of the rights of the parties, the nomenclature "Ruling" is not the determinant in concluding it is not a Judgment.
Professional Conduct	The Respondent was found not liable for professional misconduct. Referring to a Ruling as a Judgment in a letter to the Lands Registry does not constitute fraudulent misrepresentation if the decision is final in nature.
Statutory Interpretation	Provisions must be construed with reference to the whole statute. Section 58 of the Lagos State Land Registration Law does not state that only a "judgment" can be accepted; every document of interest in land is registrable.