Legalpedia Citation: (2015-10) Legalpedia 92847 (SC)

In the Supreme Court of Nigeria

Holden At Abuja

Tue Oct 27, 2015

Suit Number: SC.732/2015

CORAM

JOHN AFOLABI FABIYI     JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA

SULEIMAN GALADIMA     JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA

MARY UKAEGO PETER-ODILI     JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA

OLUKAYODE ARIWOOLA     JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA

KUDIRAT MOTONMORI OLATOKUNBO KEKERE-EKUN     JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA

JOHN INYANG OKORO     JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA

AMIRU SANUSI    JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA

JOHN AFOLABI FABIYI     JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA

PARTIES

ALHAJI IBRAHIM HASSAN DANKWAMBO

APPELLANTS

JAFAR ABUBAKAR & ORS

RESPONDENTS

AREA(S) OF LAW

JURISDICTION, LAW IN PRACTICE, RULES OF STATUTORY INTERPRETATION, CIVIL PROCEDURAL LAW, PROFESSIONAL ETHICS AND SKILLS, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

SUMMARY OF FACTS

This is an appeal against the judgment of the Court of Appeal sitting in Yola.

The brief facts that gave rise to the appeal are as follows: on 11th April 2015, elections were conducted into the office of Governor of Gombe State by the 4th respondent. The Petitioner had petitioned the Governorship Election Petition Tribunal sitting in Gombe against the election to the office of Governor of Gombe in the person of Alhaji Ibrahim Hassan Dankwambo who shall hereinafter be referred to as the Appellant. In the course of the proceedings at that Tribunal aforesaid, it was decided by the Tribunal that the name of the counsel who prepared, signed and filed the petition and conducted the pre-hearing and trial proceedings on behalf of the Petitioner is not a name on the Roll of Legal Practitioners in Nigeria and is not the name of a person allowed to practice as a lawyer in Nigeria. The Tribunal thereby expunged the pre-hearing and trial proceedings in which the said Solicitor had identified himself to the Tribunal in the unenrolled name. Also expunged was the pre-hearing Report and the Tribunal further dismissed the petition stating that the petitioner had not taken part in the pre-hearing.

On appeal to the Court of Appeal, that decision of the trial Tribunal was set aside and the Petition restored. Unhappy with that decision of the appellate Court, the Appellant has appealed to the Supreme Court.

HELD

Appeal dismissed.

ISSUES

Appeal dismissed.

RATIONES DECIDENDI

INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES – THE GOLDEN RULE OF INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES

As rightly stated by learned senior counsel for the appellant, the golden rule of interpretation of statutes is that where the words used in a statute are clear and unambiguous, they must be given their natural and ordinary meaning, unless to do so would lead to absurdity or inconsistency with the rest of the statute. It was held inter alia, in the case of IBRAHIM v. BARDE (1996) 9 NWLR (Pt. 474) 513 @ 517 B – C per Uwais, CJN (as he then was) that if the words of the statute are precise and unambiguous, no more is required to expound them in their natural and ordinary sense. He held further that the words of the statute alone in such circumstances best declare the intention of the lawmaker. See also OJOKOLOBO v. ALAMU (1987) 3 NWLR (Pt. 61) 377 @ 402 F – H; ADISA v. OYINWOLA & ORS (2000) 6 SC (PT. II) 47; UWAZURIKE & ORS v. ATTORNEY GENERAL FEDERATION (2007) 2 SC 169. PER – KUDIRAT MOTONMORI OLATOKUNBO KEKERE-EKUN, J.S.C.

INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES – CAVEAT TO THE GOLDEN RULE OF INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES

It is important to note that the caveat to the literal construction of statutes as stated in the authorities referred to above is that such literal interpretation must not lead to absurdity or inconsistency with the rest of the statute. Considerable emphasis has been laid on the decisions of this court in OKAFOR v. NWEKE (2007) 10 NWLR (Pt.1043) 521: FIRST BANK OF NIG. PLC v. MAIWADA (2013) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1348) 444 on the interpretation of Sections 2(1) & 24 of the Legal Practitioners Act. In both cases, this court stated in no uncertain terms that for accountability, responsibility and for the protection of the profession, legal practitioners must comply with the law as enacted. This is certainly good law and holds true till today. PER – KUDIRAT MOTONMORI OLATOKUNBO KEKERE-EKUN, J.S.C.

PECULIAR FACTS – EVERY CASE IS DECIDED ON ITS PECULIAR FACTS

However, the law is trite that cases are decided on their peculiar facts and in light of the applicable law and therefore every case is an authority for the facts, which it decides. See: DINGYADI & ANOR v. INEC & ORS (2011) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1255) 347 @ 391 A – B: EMEKA v. OKADIGBO (2012) 18 NWLR (Pt.1331) 55 @ 96 H: ALBION CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD. v. R.A.O. INV. & PROP. LTD. (1992)1 NWLR (Pt. 219) 583.

It was further held in EMEKA v. OKADIGBO (supra) at 96 H that the rules of stare decisis do not allow the courts to apply the ratio of a case across the board with little regard to the facts of the case before them. PER – KUDIRAT MOTONMORI OLATOKUNBO KEKERE-EKUN, J.S.C.

LEGAL PROCESSES – VALIDITY OF A LEGAL PROCESS SIGNED IN THE NAME OF A LAW FIRM

The issue in contention in NWEKE v. OKAFOR (supra) and F.B.N. PLC v. MAIWADA (supra) was the validity of a legal process signed in the name of a firm, a non-juristic person. In interpreting Sections 2 (1) & 24 of the Legal Practitioners Act, the court held that a law firm is not a legal practitioner and cannot therefore practice as such by filing processes in Nigerian Courts. In F.B.N. PLC v. MAIWADA (supra) @ 483 C – D, this court per FABIYI, JSC stated thus: “It is not in doubt that in deserving cases, purposive interpretation should be employed by the court. The purpose of a legislation is a paramount factor. The purpose of Sections 2(1) & 24 of the Act is to ensure that only a legal practitioner whose name is on the roll of this court should sign court processes. It is to ensure responsibility and accountability on the part of a legal practitioner who signs a court process. It is to ensure that fake lawyers do not invade the profession.’’

“He went further to state at 483 G: ”The literal construction of the law is that legal practitioners who are animate personalities should sign court processes and not a firm of legal practitioners, which is inanimate and cannot be found in the roll of this court.”

PER – KUDIRAT MOTONMORI OLATOKUNBO KEKERE-EKUN, J.S.C.

LEGAL PRACTITIONER – THE POSITION OF THE LAW ON THE NAME OF A LEGAL LEGAL PRACTIONER WHO ANNOUNCED APPEARANCE IN COURT BEING SAWME AS THE NAME ON THE ROLL

In resolving this issue the lower court per OGAKWU, JCA held at page 2216 of the record:  “It seems to me that the issue of whether somebody who has announced appearance in court as a legal practitioner, is indeed a legal practitioner, is whether in fact the person is a legal practitioner and not as simplistic as whether the name announced is as it appears on the Roll. May the day never come when a legal practitioner would be denied audience in court or the proceedings he conducted in court be set aside and expunged, not because he is not a legal practitioner but because he did not announce appearance in exactly the names in which he enrolled. Banish the thought Verily may that day never come. Per OGUNWUMIJU, JCA at page 2226 of the record”.

PER – KUDIRAT MOTONMORI OLATOKUNBO KEKERE-EKUN, J.S.C.

LEGAL PRACTITIONER’S ACT – INTERPRETATION AND PURPORT OF S.2 OF THE LEGAL PRACTITIONER’S ACT

Precedents are followed on the basis of facts and law they interpreted. It is a restrictive and punitive interpretation of Section 2 of the Legal Practitioners Act to hold that the only person whose appearance can be countenanced by the court must be the same person who signed processes and whose names appeared on the Roll as SAMUEL PETER KARGBO and that the contemplation of the Legal Practitioners Act is that counsel must only file processes and announce appearance only as exactly as their names appear on the Roll leaving no room for abbreviation of such name.

“……The purpose of Section 2 and Section 24 of the Legal Practitioners Act is to exclude anyone from practicing as a Barrister and Solicitor who had not been called to the Bar and whose name had not been enrolled as a Solicitor and Advocate of the Supreme Court of Nigeria. There was no doubt that the counsel who appeared before the Tribunal was a Barrister and Solicitor duly enrolled to practice law before the courts in Nigeria. Counsel’s affidavit to that effect was never countered.”

PER – KUDIRAT MOTONMORI OLATOKUNBO KEKERE-EKUN, J.S.C.

LEGAL PRACTITIONER’S ACT – WHO IS ENTITLED TO PRACTICE AS A BARRISTER AND SOLICITOR BEFORE THE COURTS

The focus and intendment of Sections 2 (1) and 24 of the Legal Practitioners Act is to prevent any person not called to the Nigerian Bar from practicing law in any court in Nigeria.

Section 7 (1) of the Legal Practitioners Act provides: 7 (1) “Subject to the provisions of this Section a person shall be entitled to have his name enrolled if, and only if-

(a) he has been called to the Bar by the Benchers; and

(b) he produces a certificate of his call to the Bar to the Registrar.ý

It follows that only a person who has complied with these provisions is entitled to have his name enrolled at the Supreme Court as a legal practitioner. If such a person after enrolment proceeds to use an abbreviated form of his name to sign processes and conduct proceedings, I am of the view that it would be stretching the literal interpretation of Section 2(1) too far to hold that processes signed in the abbreviated name and proceedings conducted with such abbreviated name are invalid.

The requirement of the law is that only a person whose name is on the roll is entitled to practice as a barrister and solicitor before the courts in Nigeria.

Learned senior counsel for the appellant himself concedes that there are circumstances such as change of name by married female members of the Bar that may be an exception to the literal interpretation of Section 2(1) of the Act. This is a concession that the Section is concerned with the animate person who has been called to the Bar. PER – KUDIRAT MOTONMORI OLATOKUNBO KEKERE-EKUN, J.S.C.

USE OF ABBREVIATION OF NAME – THE POSITION OF THE LAW ON A LEGAL PRACTITIONER USING AN ABBREVIATION/INITIALS IN SIGNING OF PROCESSES

I agree with learned counsel for the 1st respondent that there is nothing in Section 2(1) of the Legal Practitioners Act that prohibits the use of an abbreviation of one’s name or initials in signing documents and/or conducting proceedings in any court of law in Nigeria. In my view, to construe Section 2(1) of the Legal Practitioners Act in the strict sense urged by learned senior counsel for the appellant would be inconsistent with the intendment of the provision, which is to protect the legal profession from impostors and charlatans. Such an interpretation would amount to enthroning technicalities at the expense of substance and would certainly lead to a miscarriage of justice as has occurred in the instant case. It cannot be the intendment of the statute to punish a legal practitioner who has genuinely been called to the Bar simply because he signs processes and conducts proceedings using an abbreviation of his name as it appears on the Roll. PER – KUDIRAT MOTONMORI OLATOKUNBO KEKERE-EKUN, J.S.C.

JURISDICTION – HOW THE JURISDICTION OF THE ELECTION TRIBUNAL AND THE COURT OF APPEAL IN RESPECT OF ELECTION PETITIONS IS DERIVED

The law is well settled that jurisdiction is a creation of statute or the Constitution. The jurisdiction of the Election Tribunal and the Court of Appeal in respect of Election petitions is derived from the 1999 Constitution (as amended). It is therefore both statutory and constitutional. See ANPP v. GONI (2012) LPELR – 7830 6A (SC) at 29-30 G-A.

Section 285(2) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) provides: 285(2): “There shall be established in each State of the Federation an Election Tribunal to be known as the Governorship Election Tribunal which shall, to the exclusion of any court or tribunal, have original jurisdiction to hear and determine petitions as to whether any person has been validly elected to the office of Governor or Deputy Governor of a State.”

The provisions are clear and unambiguous and must be given their ordinary meaning. PER – KUDIRAT MOTONMORI OLATOKUNBO KEKERE-EKUN, J.S.C.

ABBREVIATED NAME – WHETHER OR NOT AN ABBREVIATED NAME CAN DISQUALIFY A LAWYER WHOSE NAME IS ON THE ROLL

An abbreviated name is not enough to disqualify a lawyer whose name is on the Roll. This is more so as the counsel concerned in this matter deposed to an affidavit to show that he is a qualified lawyer. Same was not countered by the other side. Sam Kargbo established that he is the same person as Samuel Peter Kargbo whose name appears on the Roll of Legal Practitioners.

This matter has nothing to do with the contention in Nweke v. Okafor (2007) 10 NWLR (pt. 1043) 521; First Bank of Nig. Plc v. Maiwada (2013) 5 NWLR (pt. 1348) 444 wherein Legal processes were signed in the name of a firm, a non-juristic person. PER – JOHN AFOLABI FABIYI, J.S.C

RESTRICTIVE INTERPRETATION – COURTS DO NOT GIVE RESTRICTICTIVE OR PUNITIVE INTERPRETATION TO A STATUTE

Courts do not give a restrictive and punitive interpretation to a statute where there is leeway that will avert such adverse consequences. I set out quite extensively, the judgment of the Court below the possibility of such adverse effect,” when it held at page 35-36 as follows: “It is restrictive and punitive interpretation of Section 2 of the Legal Practitioners Act to hold that the only person whose appearance can be countenanced by court must be the same person who signed processes and whose name appeared on the Roll as Samuel Peter Kargbo, and that the contemplation of the Legal Practitioner Act is that Counsel MUST only file processes and announce appearance only as exactly as their names appear on the Roll leaving no room for abbreviation of such a name. PER – SULEIMAN GALADIMA, J.S.C

USE OF ABBREVIATION OF NAME – WHETHER OR NOT LAWYERS CAN ABBREVIATE THEIR NAMES

The argument of learned 1st Respondent Counsel that if Sam Kargbo instead of Samuel Peter Kargbo is allowed to practice law every Nigerian Lawyer called to the Bar will be allowed to jettison his name on the Roll of Lawyers and use different names or alias in different processes and proceedings is disingenuous at best. The traditional, the Bar and Bench cannot be swept off so lightly. Most Lawyers drop their full names and use abbreviations of initials to announce their appearance and sign Court processes. That has always been acceptable so long as they are juristic persons who had been called to Bar. This has been settled beyond doubt by Hamzat v. Sani (2015) LPELR (24302) delivered by the Supreme Court. See OKAFOR V. NWEKE (2007) 10 NWLR PT.1043 Pg. 521. PER – SULEIMAN GALADIMA, J.S.C

LEGAL NAMES – THE POSITION OF THE LAW ON THE LEGAL NAMES OF MARRIED WOMEN AFTER THEIR CALL TO BAR

The present legal names of most woman Lawyers who married after call to Bar are on the Roll of Legal Practitioners. Their married name is their Legal names now. If argument were allowed to hold, eighty percent of processes in law courts today all over the country will be rendered incompetent. I cannot fathom how and why the Tribunal can countenance the argument of the respondents given the nature and circumstance of this case being an election petition. It is a preposterous enthronement of technicality over substantial Justice. The purpose of Section 2 and Section 24 of the Legal Practitioners Act is not to exclude anyone from practicing as a Barrister and Solicitor duly enrolled to practice law before the courts in Nigeria. PER – SULEIMAN GALADIMA, J.S.C

APPEARANCE BEFORE A COURT – RELEVANT STATUTORY PROVISIONS ON A LEGAL PRACTITIONER BEING PROPER BEFORE A COURT

On whether or not the solicitor, Sam Kargbo was properly before the Court, I shall quote the relevant statutory provisions as stated in the Legal Practitioners’ Act 1975 Sections 2(1), 8(1) & (2) and 24 thereof viz:

2(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, a person shall be entitled to practice as a barrister and solicitor if, and only if, his name is on the roll.

8(1) Subject to the provisions of the next following subsection and of any enactment in force in any part of Nigeria prohibiting or restricting the right of any person to be represented by a legal practitioner in proceedings before the Supreme Court or the Sharia Court of Appeal or any area or Customary Court, a legal practitioner shall have the right of audience in all Courts of law sitting in Nigeria.

(2) No legal practitioner (other than such a person as is mentioned in subsection (3) of Section 2 of this Act) shall be accorded the right of audience in any Court in Nigeria in any years, unless he has paid to the Registrar in respect of that year, a practicing fee.

“Section 24 – “Legal practitioner” means a person entitled in accordance with the provisions of this Act to practice as a barrister or as a barrister and solicitor, whether generally or for the purposes of any particular office or proceedings”.

The Court of Appeal in its judgment interpreted those provisions in this way and I shall quote extensively for a clearer appreciation of what is expected and thus:- “It is a restrictive and punitive interpretation of Section 2 of the Legal Practitioners’ Act to hold that the only person whose appearance can be countenanced by the Court must be the same person whose signed processes and whose names appeared on the Roll as Samuel Peter Kargbo, and that the contemplation of the Legal Practitioner Act is that Counsel MUST only file processes and announce appearance only as exactly as their names appear on the Roll leaving no room for abbreviation of such a name. The argument of learned 1st Respondent Counsel that if Sam Kargbo instead of Samuel Peter Kargbo is allowed to practice law, every Nigerian Lawyer called to the Bar will be allowed to jettison his name on the Roll of Lawyers and use different names or alias in different processes and proceedings is disingenuous at best. PER – MARY UKAEGO PETER-ODILI, J.S.C

USE OF ABBREVIATION – WHETHER OR NOT A LAWYER CAN ABBREVIATE THEIR NAME

The tradition at the Bar and Bench cannot be swept off so lightly. Most Lawyers drop their full names and use abbreviations or initials to announce their appearance and sign Court processes. That has always been acceptable so long as they are juristic persons who had been called to Bar. This has been settled beyond doubt by Hamzat v. Sanni (2015) LPELR (23302) 1 delivered by the Supreme Court. See OKAFOR v. NWEKE (2007) 10 NWLR (Pt.1043) Page 521. PER – MARY UKAEGO PETER-ODILI, J.S.C

LEGAL NAMES – THE LEGAL NAMES OF MARRIED WOMEN AFTER THEIR CALL TO BAR

The present legal names of most women lawyers who married after call to Bar are not on the Roll of Legal Practitioners. Their married name is their Legal names now. If the argument were allowed to hold, eighty percent of processes in law courts today all over the country will be rendered incompetent. I cannot fathom how and why the Tribunal can countenance the argument of the Respondents given the nature and circumstances of this case being an election petition. It is a preposterous enthronement of technicality over substantial justice. The purpose of Section 2 and Section 24 of the Legal Practitioners’ Act is to exclude anyone from practicing as a Barrister and Solicitor who had not been called to the Bar and whose name had not been enrolled as a Solicitor and Advocate of the Supreme Court of Nigeria. There was no doubt that Counsel who appeared before the Tribunal was a Barrister and Solicitor duly enrolled to practice law before the Courts in Nigeria. Counsel’s affidavit to that effect was never countered”. PER OGUNWUMIJU, JCA at pp35 – 36. PER – MARY UKAEGO PETER-ODILI, J.S.C

ORDER OF COURT – TEST FOR DETERMINING WHETHER AN ORDER OF COURT IS INTERLOCUTORY OR FINAL

As a follow up to the second issue as to whether the expunging of those processes and the dismissal of the petition was interlocutory or final, I shall seek refuge with the test orchestrated by Tobi JSC in Alor v. Ngene (2007) 17 NWLR (Pt.1062) 163 at 178 and thus:- “Two tests have been laid down for determining whether or not an order of Court is final or interlocutory. They are: 

(a) the nature of the application made to the Court;

(b) the nature of the order made. In Nigeria, it is the nature of order test that has been constantly applied. If the order made finally disposes of the right of the parties then the order is final. If the order made does not, then it is interlocutory.

PER – MARY UKAEGO PETER-ODILI, J.S.C

ORDER OF COURT – MEANING OF AN ORDER

An order is also regarded as final if it at once affects the status of the parties for whichever side the decision may be given, so that if it is given for the plaintiff, it is conclusive against the defendants, if it is given for defendants, it is conclusive for the plaintiff. In order to determine whether or not the decision of a court is final or interlocutory, the decision must relate to the subject matter in dispute between the parties and not the function of the court making the order. The decision of the Tribunal, of 3rd August, 2015 was a dismissal of the Petition and it affected the status of the Appellant to prosecute the Petition. Accordingly, by the nature of order test applicable in Nigeria, the decision of the Tribunal complained about is final. See OMONUWA v. OSHODIN (1985) 2 NWLR (Pt.10) 924 and AKINSANYA v. UBA LTD (1986) 4 NWLR (Pt.35) 273. In the circumstances, the stipulation of Paragraph 27(1) of the 1st Schedule does not apply”.

PER – MARY UKAEGO PETER-ODILI, J.S.C

LEGAL PRACTITIONER – WHO IS A LEGAL PRACTITIONER?

This court has held to be a legal practitioner, that person that has been called to the bar to practice as a barrister and solicitor of the Supreme Court of Nigeria as provided in Section 2(1), (2), (3) and (4) of Legal Practitioners’ Act See; F. O. M. Atake v. Chief Nelson Asigboro Afejuku (1994) 9 NWLR (Pt.368) 379, (1994) LPELR – 585 (SC). PER – OLU ARIWOOLA, J.S.C.

USE OF ABBREVIATION – WHETHER OR NOT THE LAW PROHIBITS THE USE OF ABBREVIATION

There is no doubt that the name Samuel Peter Kargbo is on the Roll of Legal Practitioners entitled to practice law in the Nigerian courts. And the person who appeared as counsel for the petitioner and who admitted in writing, also through sworn affidavit, that he is Samuel Peter Kargbo is the same person that is enrolled on the Legal Practitioners Roll in the Supreme Court. To now say that by abbreviating his name Samuel to simply “Sam” robs him of his entitlement to practice law by filing processes and appearing in court for his client, is carrying it too far. The law did not prohibit counsel or any other person from abbreviating, in particular, first name. In other words, I totally disagree with the appellant’s counsel and with respect, I consider it mischievous, to describe the abbreviated name of counsel “SAM” as an alias. PER – OLU ARIWOOLA, J.S.C.

ABRREVIATION – WHETHER OR NOT ABBREVIATION IS SAME AS ALIAS

An alias is described in the Chamber Dictionary as “a false or assumed name.” In the 9th Edition of Black’s Law Dictionary, alias is described as a “fictitious name” Whereas “to abbreviate a name is to shorten of represent a long word by a shortened form.” I must say clearly, that an abbreviated name is legal and permissible. It does not cease to be a person’s name or render it to lose its juristic personality. PER – OLU ARIWOOLA, J.S.C.

USE OF ABBREVIATION – WHETHER OR NOT AN ABBREVIATED NAMES OF PERSON ON THE ROLL OF LEGAL PRACTIONER RENDERS THE ABBREVIATED NAME UNKNOWN TO LAW

In other words, an abbreviation of the first name of any person whose name is on the Roll of Legal Practitioners does not render the abbreviated name to become unregistered or unknown to law as argued by the appellant. This is a different situation from the use of two names that are on the role as a Legal Practitioner’s name to file processes in court. There is no doubt that two persons or personalities cannot become, except in marriage when the Statutory law of marriage treats husband and wife of two different personalities as one as far as the relationship exists.

In Amos Oketade Vs. Olayinka Adewunmi & Ors (2010) NWLR (Pt.1195) 63 at 74, this court opined as follows: “There is a big legal difference between the name of 3 firm of legal practitioner and the name of a legal practitioner simpliciter. While the name of Olujinmi and Akeredolu is a firm with some corporate existence, the name of a legal practitioner is a name qua solicitor and Advocate of the Supreme Court of Nigeria which has no corporate connotation. As both carry different legal entities in our jurisprudence of parties, one cannot be a substitute for the other because they are not synonyms. It is clear that Olujinmi and Akeredolu is not a name of a Legal Practitioner in Nigeria….. There is no such name in the roll of legal practitioners….”There is no doubt that the court came to the above conclusion in that case because it was not disputed that the name Olujinmi and Akeredolu are two different names of two distinct personalities. The two names with the conjunctive word cannot make it one name of a legal practitioner on the roll of Legal Practitioners. Such name cannot be found on the roll. But the name of Samuel Peter Kargbo which is on the roll remains a legal practitioner who is entitled to practice law in the Nigerian Courts by that name either with abbreviated first name or initials of his other names other than the family name – Kargbo. It cannot be said that the name “Sam Kargbo” is either a fictitious or false name. I agree that it is the same name of Samuel Peter Kargbo – a Legal practitioner on the roll of the Supreme Court of Nigeria. PER – OLU ARIWOOLA, J.S.C

LEGAL PRACTITIONER – WHETHER OR NOT IT IS ABSURD TO DENY A REGISTERED LEGAL PRACTITIONER THE PERMISSION TO DISCHARGE HIS DUTIES BECAUSE OF AN ABBREVIATION OF HIS NAME.

To my mind, the provisions of Section 2(1) of Legal Practitioner’s Act simply prohibits persons who have not been called to the Bar or registered as Legal Practitioner to practice law in any respect. Once a person whose competence or eligibility is tested and evidence abound that he is a registered Legal Practitioner, it will be absurd or injustice to deny him the permission to exercise his functions as a legal practitioner, simply because he decides to abbreviate his name. It is not in contention that the person who signed the petition is a registered legal practitioner. PER – AMIRU SANUSI, J.S.C

USE OF ABBREVIATION – WHETHER OR NOT THE USE OF ABBREVIATION IS REASON ENOUGH TO QUESTION THE COMPETENCE OF PROCESSES A LEGAL PRACTITIONER SIGNED OR HIS APPEARANCE IN COURT

The use of abbreviation will therefore not be a reason to question his competence or the validity of the processes he signed or filed in courts or to challenge his appearance in court. From the facts and circumstances of this case, there is no evidence adduced at the tribunal to show that SAM KARGBO who signed the document petition is not a registered Legal Practitioner. In any case, the said SAM KARGBO deposed to an affidavit stating his actual name as SAMUEL PETER KARGBO as reflected in the Roll of Legal Practitioners and that he is the same person bearing the abbreviated name of SAM KARGBO. PER – AMIRU SANUSI, J.S.C

CASES CITED

STATUTES REFERRED TO

Electoral Act 2010 (as amended)

Legal Practitioner’s Act

Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended)

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT