We have seen the need to always have an adequate retainership agreement. This is a more professional approach for lawyers. Assuming that the applicant had reduced the agreement to a formal retainership contract, the corresponding extension clause would have been included. This is not to say that the exchanged offer letter and the acceptance letter were not sufficient to conclude a contract. The only point was that because of the situation, it was difficult for the Court to read the agreement, which was not expressed and was not supported by the conduct of the parties. The General Court rightly rejected the invitation to accept that the retainership agreement implies an automatic extension clause. This is capable of creating difficulties in a customer. The only reasonable period of time within which such an extension may be implied is that the client continues to give instructions that the lawyer executes over the course of a consecutive year. His appeal to the Court of Appeal was also dismissed.
Mahmoud, JCA, said the renewal agreement was denounced in 2009 and there was no extension agreement. Your Ladyship decided that it was in the nature of the Rétainer agreement to be renewed for one year. The court was satisfied that in 2010 the applicant had not demanded in writing the payment of a withholding tax, which was recognition for the hiring of the retracter. As a rule, a retainer agreement signed by the lawyer and the client is signed for matters requiring extensive specialized legal work. The agreement contains the nature of the services to be provided by the lawyer, the retainer fee collected and the duration of the relationship to be retainer. The facts of Babatunde v. Osun State College of Education are simple. The complainant, Mr. Dosu Babatunde, counsel, was offered a stay by the Osun State College of Education („respondent“) in 2009. He was also a member of the school`s board of directors.
The offer was made by a letter of offer which the complainant accepted in writing. No formal retainership contract has been concluded. There was no agreement on the duration of the hold contract and no agreement was reached to extend it. The agreed withholding tax for 2009 was paid to the claimant. The applicant did not apply for a fee for 2010 and did not request an extension. In 2011, the complainant wrote to the respondent requesting her rights of detention. The respondent responded that maintenance had ceased since 2010, after the Grievor did not request an extension. There is no evidence that the Applicant received any further instructions from the respondent and there is no evidence of work performed in 2010 and 2011 or later. . . .