Gboyega Ajibola Okunniga

Introduction

Gboyega Ajibola Okunniga is a solicitor who qualified in 2010 and worked as a consultant at Clifton Law Solicitors in Coventry from September 2018, and who has been struck off by the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT). A fee dispute with his own firm spiralled until a district judge described him as a “dishonest fraudster” who “consistently lied” to the court and to his law firm. The SDT said his dishonesty was “of the utmost seriousness” in that it breached his “fundamental duty” not to mislead the court or others. The strike-off was reported by Legal Futures on 31 March 2026.

Background Information

At Clifton Law, where he consulted from September 2018, a dispute arose between him and the firm over his share of legal fees relating to ‘Mr and Mrs A’, clients and directors of ‘Company A’, a gold commodity trading company. In September 2020 he issued proceedings at Coventry County Court to recover £9,600, but the law firm counterclaimed for fees owed to it.

The Controversy or Incident That Led to Their Cancellation

Adjudicated vs. alleged. The underlying court findings — District Judge Gilmore’s 2022 findings and the dismissal of Okunniga’s claim together with the award on the firm’s counterclaim — are matters of court record. The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal’s dishonesty finding was a regulatory adjudication reached on the civil standard, not a criminal conviction. Okunniga’s defence — that the payments related to a separate business ‘merger’ between his company and the client’s company — was rejected by the court, which found the merger to have been fabricated.

In 2022, District Judge Gilmore found that Okunniga had instructed Mr and Mrs A to make nine payments for legal services directly into his private bank accounts, which he then kept for himself. Okunniga submitted that the payments related to a separate business ‘merger’ outside of his employment by the firm, between his company, Company X, and Company A — but Company X was not actually a company, only a trading name for his consultancy business. Mrs A denied any merger existed and alleged he had the legal fees paid into his bank account directly because he was unhappy with Clifton Law’s fee-sharing agreement. The court found the merger to have been fabricated and Okunniga’s claim was dismissed; the judge awarded the firm £22,800 on the counterclaim. His appeal was rejected. The firm then obtained an interim charging order against Okunniga’s marital property. He and his wife applied to set it aside, saying his wife was the sole beneficial owner under a 2017 declaration of trust, but DJ Gilmore held the trust deed was a sham, that the couple held the beneficial interest as joint tenants, and that they had lied.

Stressing it had regard to the judge’s findings but reached its own conclusions on the facts, the SDT found Okunniga acted dishonestly by giving misleading information to the court and by “fabricating the existence” of the merger “in an attempt to explain why he received nine payments from clients into his personal bank accounts”, money owed to Clifton Law. Describing him as an “unreliable witness”, the tribunal said it was “inconceivable” that he could believe that there was a merger. Okunniga, who represented himself, had argued that there was “no personal benefit to him in fabricating a ‘merger’ and thereby misleading the court”. The SDT also found he had issued invoices to Mr and Mrs A in 2019 and demanded payment for fees allegedly owed to Clifton Law, when the firm had not authorised them and the fees were not owed. One, purportedly on the firm’s letterhead, covered the recovery of gold bars valued at $15m, for which he charged £25,000 plus VAT. He also sent two knowingly misleading letters to airlines in January 2019 about a gold bar consignment in their custody, signing them as “head of international trade and arbitration” at Clifton Law — a title and department that did not exist. He denied the allegation “on the basis that it was at best a misunderstanding about job title”. A further allegation, over the firm’s enforcement proceedings, was rejected: the SDT concluded on the balance of probabilities that the trust deed was not a sham.

Public Reaction and Consequences

The judicial characterisation was blunt: a district judge described Okunniga as a “dishonest fraudster” who “consistently lied” to the court and to his law firm, and was satisfied that he and his wife had lied in the trust dispute over the charging order. Rita Onwuka, the firm’s principal, was described at the tribunal as “a clear and compelling witness”, with the SDT accepting her evidence that the gold bar recovery work was “completely outside the normal business of the firm” — and so was not insured — and that she did not know about or authorise it. It decided that Okunniga “significantly overcharged Mr and Mrs A” and raised invoices and chased payment without the firm’s knowledge or consent. The SDT said his misconduct caused harm to Onwuka, who was “engaged in lengthy litigious proceedings as a result”, and that his actions “also caused distress to the firm’s clients”. The solicitor “did not show any insight into the nature or effect of his misconduct”.

Current Status

Okunniga has been struck off by the SDT, with the outcome reported on 31 March 2026. The SRA claimed over £59,000 in costs, but this was reduced to £10,000 on the grounds of the solicitor’s limited means. His claim stays dismissed, the £22,800 counterclaim award stands, and the interim charging order over his marital property survived the attempt to set it aside; no further appeal has been reported.

Impact on Their Career/Life

The striking-off order removes Okunniga from the roll, ending a legal career running since 2010 and closing off practice as a solicitor in the UK. His regulatory record now includes findings that he kept nine client payments in his private bank accounts, fabricated a merger to explain them to a court, issued unauthorised invoices — one, for £25,000 plus VAT, over a $15m gold bar recovery — and signed misleading letters to airlines under a job title that did not exist.

The financial consequences ran alongside the professional ones: a £9,600 claim dismissed, £22,800 awarded against him on the counterclaim, and a charging order over his marital property after the 2017 declaration of trust was held to be a sham. With the tribunal concluding he had shown no insight into his misconduct, he ends his career struck off and with his dishonesty described as of the utmost seriousness.