Lawyer sues Oxford University over claims its dictionary mixed up land law definitions

By on

Wants £20,500 in damages

A lawyer from Nigeria is suing the University of Oxford and Oxford University Press for apparently mixing up the definitions of ‘mortgagee’ and ‘mortgagor’ — remember that the next time you feel you’re the only one in your class who can’t get your land law terms down!

Claimant Ogedi Ogu, whose first language isn’t English, allegedly purchased the Oxford Mini Reference Dictionary and the Oxford English Mini Dictionary in the mid-2000s. He said the word “mortgagee” was there defined as the borrower in a mortgage transaction, and the word “mortgagor” as the lender.

Ogu says he relied on incorrect definitions of the land law lingo when providing legal advice, and was later corrected by a colleague who directed him to a different dictionary. The claimant says this mistake saw his colleagues stop asking him for legal advice, and caused him embarrassment and a loss of professional esteem.

The 2018 Firms Most List

Ogu is seeking £20,500 in damages over the supposed dictionary definitions mishap, and has now reportedly filed the case in the Lagos High Court. Lawyer Emmanuel Ofoegbu is representing the claimant.

Reports say that, after Ogu wrote to the defendants notifying them of his intention to bring a claim, they replied, admitting there had been a mistake. But, according to reports, the defendants added:

“Our dictionaries are made available as a reference tool only; they are never held out by OUP as being an alternative to seeking independent legal or financial advice, and we cannot take responsibility for an individual’s decision to use them as such.”

Legal Cheek has reached out to both the publishing company and the elite university for comment.

It’s understood the Nigerian lawyer also wants the court to order that Oxford University Press includes a caveat in its dictionaries making clear they are only available as reference tools.

The court is yet to fix a dating for hearing.

For all the latest commercial awareness info, and advance notification of Legal Cheek's careers events:

Sign up to the Legal Cheek Hub



No access to a land law textbook at all? At all?

Beast from the east

Seems like a sensible, reasonable action that is grounded in common sense. Not vexatious at all. Idiot.

The Prince of Lagos

Good day and what a fine day it
is too.

As most righteous and truthful African I have an exclusive offer to make to you because you have the finest and most trustworthy reputation, Sir.

I am the son of Nigeria’s richest and most powerful Chief, however due to an unfoetunate administrative error I am marooned in Vanuatu.

My Father has sent me $2M but the bank requires $1000 administration fee in order to release the funds.

If, in all good discretion (you must tell no one) you would be willing to help me in this endeavour, then I will share with you 10% of this sum ($200,000.00) by way of gratitude for your most kind and generous assistance.

In order for me to be sending these funds once they are released, I will be needing the following important informations from you:

Telephone number
Email address and password
Date of Birth
Social Security Number
Bank account number
Sort code
Credit card number
Credit card expiry date
Credit card PiN
Credit card security code
Mother’s maiden name
City of birth
Healthcare provider number
Copy of passport
Copy of driving licence

Once I am receiving these from you together with $1000 admin fee into my account then I am
immediately sending you the $200,000.00 reward.

Do not delay!

With great blessings upon you and with the very humblest of gratitudes.


I find that my dictionary often offers better legal advice than most high street firms.


Evidence, please?


It’s self evident.


How has he valued his claim?


Was his lawyer also asking OUP for just a admin fee of $1,000 to release funds from a trunk case of diamonds that it’s long lost uncle had left it?


This post has been removed because it breached Legal Cheek’s comments policy.


Seems a bit racist…


It is embarrassing for OUP to make such grave mistakes! Even if the dictionary is only available as a reference tool, it should be an accurate reference tool.


Hey girl…I think I’ve seen your picture before….Oh yeh, it was in the dictionary right next to KABLAMMMM!


I mean the picture of the dictionary at the top has the correct definitions so its a bit misleading having the facepalm emoji on top of it


Once sued an accountant who got “chargor” and “chargee” the wrong way round and registered a debenture against the wrong company. Caused huge loss on later insolvency.


Woop. Tee. Do.


Actually, it’s “whoop-de-do”.


Surely it’s professionally embarrassing to be a lawyer relying solely on a dictionary anyway? What possible service to a client is that?


It said his first language wasn’t English so this makes sense. Would you not use a dictionary for a language you didn’t know well?


Fair enough, but query whether it’s really in the client’s best interests just to have left it at dictionary corner and not then checked, y’know, the law.


I might well have done. But I wouldn’t have been giving legal advice in a language which I didn’t know well. Obviously. Are you a lawyer?


In Nigeria the law is in English so English being his second language is irrelevant. This so called Lawyer should be censored by the court he is appealing to for incompetence. If this basic grammatical mistake was committed by him in reality ( personally I think he saw the mistake in the dictionary and is trying to take advantage of it ) what type of legal advice was he giving, his clients should so him.


As we’re in pedants corner… this is not a grammatical mistake, it’s a semantic mistake


And, I believe it should be “censured”, not “censored”.


i hope he takes them to the dry cleaners


I get my nails done near Old Kent Road. The area is a bit dodgy but the price is good and I look fabulous. My other half loves to lick nutella off of then.

Judge Hobosexual

This post has been removed because it breached Legal Cheek’s comments policy.



Judge Hobosexual

How rude, I am a judge


Wonder if it’ll be struck out under the court’s own jurisdiction.


Did not realize the Oxf dictionary was used by practitioners. Not “reasonable to rely” at all.

Also if the practitioner’s English is so awful that they did not know the difference between simple suffixes they really should be disbarred.


Would be more interesting to see a breakdown value of his damages claim …..



Queeg 500

“He gets all his information on phenomenology, astrophysics and quantum mechanics from a single reference tome; The Junior Encyclopaedia of Space.”

Join the conversation

Related Stories