BARR. JERRY AKPAN V. PRUDENTIAL CO-OPERATIVE MICRO-FINANCE BANK LTD & ORS

Legalpedia Citation: (2023-12) Legalpedia 86918 (CA)

In the Court of Appeal

Holden At Calabar

Wed Dec 13, 2023

Suit Number: CA/C/303/2019

CORAM

Hamma Akawu Barka Justice, Court of Appeal

Balkisu Bello Aliyu Justice, Court of Appeal

Peter Chudi Obiora Justice, Court of Appeal

PARTIES

BARR. JERRY AKPAN

APPELLANTS

PRUDENTIAL CO-OPERATIVE MICRO-FINANCE BANK LTD
BRIDGET BASSEY
BAYO MUSTAPH

RESPONDENTS

AREA(S) OF LAW

APPEAL, BANKING, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, EVIDENCE, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The 1st respondent as the claimant at the lower Court vide a motion Ex-parte prayed the Court for an order to place the suit under the Undefended List in line with Order 11 Rule 8(1) and (2) of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules of Akwa Ibom State, 2009. The lower Court granted the application and the suit was placed on the Undefended List and the writ of summons was served on the appellant who was the 1st defendant in the suit. Thereafter, the appellant entered appearance to the suit and filed a notice of intention to defend the suit.

The appellant brought an application before the trial Court praying it to strike out the suit for lack of jurisdiction as the suit was statute barred based on the provisions of the Central Bank of Nigeria Prudential Guidelines for Deposit Money Banks in Nigeria, 2010. The trial Court heard the appellant’s application and dismissed it. The Appellant was dissatisfied hence this appeal.

The Respondents filed a preliminary objection contending the legality of the brief filed by the Appellant in light of the fact that the person who signed the documents is not one whose name is on the Rolls of Legal Practitioners kept at the Supreme Court of Nigeria and hence isn’t authorized to act in that capacity.

HELD

Appeal dismissed

ISSUES

Whether the processes of the Appellant filed in this Appeal are incompetent in view of Section 2(1) and 24 of the Legal Practitioners Act, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, same having been signed and filed by a person whose name is not on the Rolls of Legal Practitioners kept at the Supreme Court of Nigeria?
Whether the trial Court properly construed the Central Bank of Nigeria Prudential Guidelines for Deposit Money Banks in Nigeria, 2010 as a whole before arriving at its decision?
Whether the trial Court was right when it raised an issue bothering on the true legal status of the Guidelines relied upon by the Appellant in his objection suo motu and acted upon it without calling on the parties or Appellant to address it on the said issue before basing its decision on it?
Whether upon a proper interpretations of Section 315 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended); Section 57, 60(1&2) and 64 of the Banks and Other Financial Institutions Act, 2004 Cap. B3 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria respectively; the cases of U.B.N. v. Ajabule (2011) 18 NWLR (Part 1278) page 152 and Ogboja v. Access Bank Plc (2016) 2 NWLR (Part 1496) page 291, the Central Bank of Nigeria Prudential Guidelines for Deposit Money Banks in Nigeria, 2010 are subsidiary legislations which Courts should take judicial notice of and therefore do not require to be proved by evidence?

RATIONES DECIDENDI

SIGNATURE – CONDUCT OF PARTIES IN RELATION TO SIGNING COURT PROCESSES

From a plethora of Court decisions, the point has repeatedly been made that a Court process prepared and filed in a Court of law by a legal practitioner must be signed by the legal practitioner whose name is on the Roll of legal practitioners. In addition, it has been the position that a signature place on the name of a law firm is incompetent because the law firm is not a person admitted to practice law in Nigeria. See Okafor v. Nweke (2007) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1043) 521; S.L.B. Consortium Ltd v. N.N.P.C. (2011) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1252) 317; Oketade v. Adewunmi (2010) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1195) 63; Okarika v. Samuel (2013) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1352) 19 and Aliyu v. Okoye & Ors (2018) LPELR-45429(CA). – Per P. C. Obiora, JCA

SIGNATURES – WHETHER A LEGAL PRACTITIONER CAN ABBREVIATE HIS/HER NAME OR INITIALS IN SIGNING COURT PROCESSES

The facts of this case are similar with the case of Dankwambo v. Abubakar & Ors (2015) LPELR-25716(SC) at pages 22 – 23 paras. G-E where the issue was that the Court processes were signed by “Sam Kargbo” who is a legal practitioner but whose name on the Roll appears as “Samuel Peter Kargbo”. The Supreme Court, per Kereke-Ekun, JSC held that:

“It was not proved that the person who signed processes and conducted proceedings as SAM KARGBO is not a legal practitioner or that he is not the same person as SAMUEL PETER KARGBO that appears on the Roll.

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.”

What more can I say? Nothing! I wholeheartedly adopt and apply this erudite pronouncement of the Supreme Court. – Per P. C. Obiora, JCA

LAW AUTHORITIES – CONDUCT OF PARTIES IN CITING LAW AUTHORITIES

It is one thing to cite case law authorities to the Court but the applicability of any case law is dependent on the facts of each case. The appellant appreciated the known principle that a Court is bound to consider any enactment or instrument or pleading as a whole and not in isolation and the cases of PDP v. Oranezi (supra); Oyeyemi v. Comm., L.G. Kwara State (supra); Artra Ind. (Nig) Ltd v. N.B.C.I. (supra) cited by the appellant are apt on the point.

However, citing numerous case laws without applying the principles of law enunciated in the cases to the facts of the case under trial is unhelpful. – Per P. C. Obiora, JCA

COURTS – DUTY OF COURTS TO INVITE PARTIES TO ADDRESS IT ON ISSUES RAISED SUO MOTU

Furthermore, it is trite law that while a Court reserves the right to raise any issue it feels is important for the just determination of a case but the Court is under obligation to invite the parties to address it on the issue raised suo motu before the Court can rule on it. The reason for this demand on the Court to invite the parties to address the new issue is not far-fetched. A Court cannot play the role of an investigator and embark on cloistered justice by making enquiry on matters not raised in open Court. Again, every decision of the Court must favour a party against the other party. This is why it is imperative to hear the parties, particularly the party likely to be adversely affected by the issue. See Ajuwon v. Akanni (1993) 9 NWLR (Part 316) 182 at 190; Ajao v. Ashiru (1973) 11 S.C. 23 at 39-40; Effiom & Ors v. CROSIEC & Anor (2010) LPELR-1027(SC) and ACN v. Lamido & Ors (2012) LPELR-7825(SC). – Per P. C. Obiora, JCA

COURTS – WHERE COURTS FAIL TO GIVE PARTIES THE OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS IT ON ISSUES RAISED SUO MOTU

In Tyondo v. Iorliam & Anor (2021) LPELR-55511(CA) at page 14 paras. A-C, Nimpar, JCA, held that:

“While the Court has a duty to give the parties the opportunity to be heard on any issue it raises suo motu, a failure to do so does not necessarily lead to a reversal of its decision. To warrant an appellate Court’s reversal of the decision, the Appellant must go further to show that the failure to hear him on the point occasioned some miscarriage of justice. See IMAH vs OKOGBE (1993) 9 N.W.L.R (Part 316) 159 at 178; OLUBODE vs SALAMI (1985) 2 N.W.L.R (Part 7) 282.” – Per P. C. Obiora, JCA

JUDICIAL NOTICE – THE WHOLE ESSENCE OF JUDICIAL NOTICE

The whole essence of a Court taking judicial notice of any law, enactment or subsidiary legislation or a party pleading and leading evidence on such legal instrument is to enable the Court to consider the said instrument and apply it to the case before the Court. – Per P. C. Obiora, JCA

CASES CITED

STATUTES REFERRED TO

Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended)
High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules of Akwa Ibom State, 2009
Central Bank of Nigeria Prudential Guidelines for Deposit Money Banks in Nigeria, 2010 Legal Practitioners Act.
Banks and Other Financial Institutions Act, 2004 Cap. B3 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria
Evidence Act 2011

Central Bank of Nigeria Revised Regulatory and Supervisory Guidelines for Microfinance Banks (MFBs) in Nigeria.