An unpaid invoice. A disputed delivery. Extra work approved over the telephone, with no agreement on the price. Each raises a question Nigerian businesses would rather settle before a project begins: what happens when the parties remember the deal differently?

For legal professional Ngozi Samuel Uzougbo, the starting point is the record of what each side promised. Her approach puts clear requirements, documented approvals and early legal advice at the centre of the discussion.

In this interview, she explains why the decisions made before signing deserve as much attention as the dispute which follows.

Uzougbo earned her Bachelor of Laws degree from Benson Idahosa University in 2015, with law school following in November 2016.

She worked as Counsel at Emordi Nweze & Co Chambers from July 2018 to January 2019 before joining Entrepose DBN as Legal Officer in October 2019.

The move brought her from chambers into a corporate setting where legal questions meet project decisions.

In this interview, Uzougbo discusses payment disagreements, changing project instructions, workplace misconduct and access to justice.

She explains what a small business should check before signing and what a person seeking legal help should expect from the process.

When a business dispute reaches a lawyer, what questions would you ask first?

I would ask what each side agreed to do and which records support their understanding. The price is only one part of the agreement. Delivery requirements, payment conditions and approval of changes also matter.

My interest is in whether the wording reflects the actual expectations of the parties. Legal advice is most useful when there is still time to clarify those expectations before anyone commits resources.

You joined Entrepose DBN in October. How does moving from chambers to a corporate legal role change the questions you ask?

In a dispute, you examine the agreement, the correspondence and what the parties did. In a corporate role, I want to ask some of those questions before the problem develops.

Who approved the commitment? What would demonstrate completion? Does the document match the work the team is discussing? The operational context matters because a clause has to describe a decision people will act on.

A business owner wants to sign today and begin work tomorrow. What deserves attention before the signature?

I would ask the owner to explain the agreement in ordinary language. What will you receive? When will you receive payment or make payment? How will both sides decide whether the work meets the requirements? Who approves additional work?

If the explanation differs from the document, there is a problem to resolve. Reading the signature page is not enough. The obligations, schedules and supporting documents need attention.

The contractor says the job is complete. The customer disagrees and withholds payment. What would you want to see?

They should begin with the agreement and the records of performance. The questions include what was promised, which acceptance requirements apply and whether the parties agreed to any changes.

I would want to see the instructions, delivery records and relevant correspondence. This is also why acceptance requirements deserve attention before work starts. A later dispute becomes harder to assess when neither party documented what completion would mean.

On a busy project, someone approves extra work over the telephone. Where does the risk arise?

The parties should clarify the change and document the agreement through an appropriate process. Additional work affects scope, cost and timing. There is also a question of authority: did the person making the promise have approval to do so?

A practical change procedure helps the project team know which decisions require review. The objective is a usable record of what changed and who agreed.

For a small business watching every expense, why pay for legal review before a disagreement exists?

I would ask which decisions the transaction requires and where uncertainty carries a cost. Legal review should identify those concerns and explain the options clearly. A lawyer also needs to understand the operational requirements.

Advice which arrives too late or ignores the project is less useful. Bringing legal questions into the planning stage gives the parties more opportunity to resolve them while their interests are still aligned.

A lawyer understands the contract, while an engineer understands the system. What needs to happen between them?

Lawyers need precise explanations of technical requirements. Engineers need to understand which decisions create obligations for the business. If a project promises a particular level of performance, the legal team needs to know how performance will be measured.

The technical team needs to know who approves the promise. I see the relationship as a continuing exchange of information, with each person contributing knowledge the other needs.

What would a practical compliance process look like for a Nigerian business without a large legal department?

The starting point should be understanding the obligations relevant to the business and assigning responsibility for them. A smaller company needs a workable record of its agreements, approvals and important deadlines.

Requirements differ across businesses, so a generic checklist has limits. I would encourage owners to identify the matters which require professional advice and establish a process for responding. A policy has little value if nobody knows who should act.

You identify advocacy for women and children as an interest. What should legal support offer someone who is unsure where to turn?

My concern is whether people understand the options available to them and receive appropriate support. A person seeking help might face financial pressure, fear or uncertainty about whom to approach.

Legal communication should be clear and respectful. Matters involving children also require careful attention to their circumstances. I would want any discussion of advocacy to recognize the responsibilities of qualified professionals and relevant support services.

A woman reports misconduct at work and fears losing her job. What should the employer’s response address?

An employer should take the report seriously and use a fair process. The person raising the concern needs clear information about how the matter will be handled. Confidentiality, reliable records and the risk of retaliation deserve attention.

The process should also allow the people involved to respond appropriately. A written policy should explain responsibilities so employees are not left guessing where to report or what follows.

If policymakers want to improve access to justice, what should they ask the people seeking help?

They should ask where people struggle to move from knowing they have a concern to obtaining appropriate help. The answer requires evidence about costs, information, procedures and available services.

I would also ask whether people understand the guidance provided to them. Rules and institutions need to be assessed through the experience of the people seeking assistance, including women and children.

At this stage of your career, what do you want people to gain from your work?

I want to help people and organizations understand the obligations they accept and the options available when problems arise. For businesses, this means clearer agreements and better records of decisions.

For individuals, this means legal information they understand and appropriate support. My immediate priority is to develop my judgment through careful work, continued learning and attention to the facts of each matter.