AKIN AGBONZE OKE v. MR. JOSHUA OBAYUWANA
March 30, 2025CHIEF USMAN BRAIMAH v. ALHAJI SHAEBU MAMUDU & ORS.
March 30, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (2020) Legalpedia (CA) 11516
In the Court of Appeal
HOLDEN AT BENIN
Sun Sep 27, 2020
Suit Number: CA/B/337/2013
CORAM
PIUS OLAYIWOLA ADEREMI JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEAL .(Delivering the lead judgment)
PIUS OLAYIWOLA ADEREMI JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEAL .(Delivering the lead judgment)
PIUS OLAYIWOLA ADEREMI JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEAL .(Delivering the lead judgment)
PIUS OLAYIWOLA ADEREMI JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEAL .(Delivering the lead judgment)
PIUS OLAYIWOLA ADEREMI JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEAL .(Delivering the lead judgment)
PIUS OLAYIWOLA ADEREMI JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEAL .(Delivering the lead judgment)
PIUS OLAYIWOLA ADEREMI JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEAL .(Delivering the lead judgment)
PIUS OLAYIWOLA ADEREMI JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEAL .(Delivering the lead judgment)
PIUS OLAYIWOLA ADEREMI JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEAL .(Delivering the lead judgment)
PIUS OLAYIWOLA ADEREMI JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEAL .(Delivering the lead judgment)
PIUS OLAYIWOLA ADEREMI JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEAL .(Delivering the lead judgment)
PIUS OLAYIWOLA ADEREMI JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEAL .(Delivering the lead judgment)
PIUS OLAYIWOLA ADEREMI JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEAL .(Delivering the lead judgment)
PIUS OLAYIWOLA ADEREMI JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEAL .(Delivering the lead judgment)
PIUS OLAYIWOLA ADEREMI JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEAL .(Delivering the lead judgment)
PIUS OLAYIWOLA ADEREMI JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEAL .(Delivering the lead judgment)
PIUS OLAYIWOLA ADEREMI JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEAL .(Delivering the lead judgment)
PIUS OLAYIWOLA ADEREMI JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEAL .(Delivering the lead judgment)
PIUS OLAYIWOLA ADEREMI JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEAL .(Delivering the lead judgment)
PIUS OLAYIWOLA ADEREMI JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEAL .(Delivering the lead judgment)
PIUS OLAYIWOLA ADEREMI JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEAL .(Delivering the lead judgment)
PIUS OLAYIWOLA ADEREMI JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEAL .(Delivering the lead judgment)
PIUS OLAYIWOLA ADEREMI JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEAL .(Delivering the lead judgment)
PIUS OLAYIWOLA ADEREMI JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEAL .(Delivering the lead judgment)
PIUS OLAYIWOLA ADEREMI JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEAL .(Delivering the lead judgment)
PIUS OLAYIWOLA ADEREMI JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEAL .(Delivering the lead judgment)
PIUS OLAYIWOLA ADEREMI JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEAL .(Delivering the lead judgment)
PARTIES
CHIEF USMAN BRAIMAH
ALHAJI SHAEBU MAMUDU
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The 1st – 4th Respondents instituted this action vide their amended writ of summons against the Appellant before the High Court of Edo State, Auchi Judicial Division, holden at Auchi, wherein they sought for declaratory reliefs that Anwain Clan is made up of five villages namely – Ewora, Idegun, Iyoba, Eware and Amah with each village administered by a titular Village Head, that the Defendants lacked locus standi and/or right under any law whether customary or otherwise to single handedly create any village or alter the status of the existing villages in Anwain Clan without consultation with or consent and concurrence of the people of the village concerned and/or holding public inquiry with all stakeholders in Anwain Clan ; an Order setting aside the said decision of the Executive Council of Edo State; perpetual injunction restraining the 1st and 2nd Defendants from amending B.S.L.N: 137 of 1979 Declaration stating the Customary Law Regulating Succession to the Traditional Ruler Title of Clan headship of Anwain, without holding public inquiry; amongst other reliefs. At the end of the trial, the lower Court restrained the Appellant perpetually from parading himself or referring to himself as the Village Head of Oteh or claiming that Oteh is a village distinct from Ewora. Aggrieved, the Appellant filed a Notice of Appeal, which was later amended. On their part, the 1st – 4th Respondents filed a notice of intention to contend that the judgment should be affirmed on grounds other than those relied on by the court below.
HELD
Appeal Allowed
ISSUES
Whether the proceedings of the lower court based on the further amended writ of summons dated 30th March, 2010 taken out by A.O.O. Ekpu & Co. (a firm of legal practitioners) are not rendered void by reason of non – compliance with sections 2(1) and 24 of the Legal Practitioners Act, Cap L11, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004.
RATIONES DECIDENDI
SIGNING OF COURT PROCESS – CONSEQUENCES OF A LEGAL PRACTITIONER’S FAILURE TO SIGN COURT PROCESSES FILED ON BEHALF OF HIS CLIENT
“To be brief on the matter, it is settled law that a court process may be taken out and signed by a party himself. A court process may also be taken out and signed by a legal practitioner, on behalf of his client or the litigating party.
Where a party engages a legal practitioner to take out and file the court process, the legal practitioner must sign the court process.
I agree with Prof. Ekpu, that generally in the conduct of a case, the sin or sins of counsel should not be visited on the party that he represents. See Adekeye & Ors. v. Akin-Olubade (1987) 3 NWLR (Pt. 60) 214 and Ndika v. Chiejina (2003) 1 NWLR (Pt. 802) 451. I think, however, that this principle of law does not apply where an originating process filed by the learned counsel is so fundamentally defective that it deprives the court of its jurisdiction to entertain the action, case, cause or suit”. –
SIGNATURE – MEANING OF SIGNATURE AND ESSENCE OF SIGNING A LEGAL PROCESS
“What is the meaning of “signature”? In its ordinary meaning, “signature” is:
“Your name as you usually write it……” or
“…..the act of signing something.”
And to “sign your name” means:
“…. To write your name on a document, letter, etc. to show that you have written it, that you agree with what it says, or that it is genuine.”
Oxford Advanced Learners’ Dictionary, 7th Edition, pages 1367 and 1366, respectively.
In legal parlance, “signature” means:
“A person’s name or mark written by that person or at that person’s direction.”
Black’s Law Dictionary, Eighth Edition, page 1415.
The endorsement on the original writ of summons was done by “A. O. O. Ekpu Esq” whose name simpliciter was type-written thereon without more. Counsel argued that the said endorsement is a sufficient signature. I do not agree. He was required to “sign” it and not merely type-write his name on the process. Anybody can use a typewriter or computer to type the name of a person and the responsibility of such a document, on which only a name is type-written, cannot be attached to any person.
The essence of signing a legal process is to authenticate the content therein and to claim responsibility for it. Therefore, in the wisdom of the law, an unsigned document or process is worthless and has no efficacy. See Ojo v. Adejobi (1978) 11 NSCC 161; A.G; Abia State v. Agharanya (1999) 6 NWLR (Pt. 607) 362 and Omega Bank (Nig.) PLC v. O.B.C. Limited (2005) 8 NWLR (Pt. 928) 547; (2005) 1 SCNJ 150. –
LEGAL PERSONALITY – WHETHER A BUSINESS NAME IS ACCORDED LEGAL PERSONALITY
“It is now settled that a law firm, such as “A.O.O. Ekpu & Co.” is not a legal practitioner, within the meaning of sections 2 (1) and 24 of the Legal Practitioners Act, Cap. L11, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004. See Okafor .v. Nweke (2007) 3 S.C. (Pt. II) 55 at 62 – 63 where the Supreme Court stated that:
“In reality ‘Adewale Adesokan & Co’ which signed the originating summons is not a legal practitioner known to the applicable Legal Practitioners Act…
…it is not in doubt that the signature of “Adewale Adesokan & Co’ on the originating summons of the appellant robs the process of competence ab initio…”
Similarly, in the case of SLB Consortium Limited v. Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation (2011) 9 NWLR (Pt.1252) 317 at 366, per Onnoghen, JSC (he then was, later CJN), the Supreme Court held as follows:
“In law, a business name is not accorded legal personality; it is not recognized as a legal person capable of taking or defending actions in the law courts”.
See also Vincent Nnamdi Okwuosa v. Prof. N.E. Gomwalk & Ors. (2017) 9 NWLR (Pt.1570) 259 and the recent case of Alhaji Fatai O. Yusuf v. Mobil Oil Nigeria Plc (2020) 3 NWLR (Pt.1710) 1. –
SIGNING OF COURT PROCESS – CONSEQUENCES OF A LEGAL PRACTITIONER SIGNING A COURT PROCESS IN THE NAME OF ITS FIRM
“The effect of a legal practitioner signing an originating process, such as a writ of summons, in the name of a law firm, is that the entire suit is incompetent, ab initio, and it is regarded as non-existent. See Ministry of Works & Transport, Adamawa State v. Yakubu (2013) 6 NWLR (Pt.1351) 481 and Chukwudi Nnalimuo v. Sunday Elodumuo (Appeal No. SC: 278/2005 delivered on 12/01/2018).
The proceedings of the lower court, therefore, amount to a mere nullity. See Akpene .v. Barclays Bank of Nigeria Ltd. (1977) 1 SC 47, Adegoke Motors Ltd. v. Adesanya (1989) 3 NWLR (Pt. 109) 250 and In re: S.C. Ezendu & 8 Ors. (2002) 14 NWLR (Pt. 787) 312”. –
LACK OF JURISDICTION OF COURT – EFFECT OF LACK OF JURISDICTION OF COURT
“Now it is settled that an intermediate appellate court, such as this court, has a duty to resolve all issues raised by the parties. See Ifeanyi Chukwu (Osondu) Ltd v. Soleh Boneh Ltd. (2000) 5 NWLR (Pt. 656) 322.
However, where the court considers an issue of jurisdiction and it is crystal clear that it lacks jurisdiction, it then becomes unnecessary to consider other issues. See Ikechukwu v. FRN (2015) 7 NWLR (Pt.1457)1 and Owuru v. Adigwu (2018)1 NWLR (Pt.1599) 1.
It is trite law that where a decision or judgment of a trial court is null and void, as in this case, there is no valid decision or judgment from which an appeal could lie to the Court of Appeal. See Customary Court of Appeal, Edo State v. Chief (Engr.) E. A. Aguele & Ors. (2018) 3 NWLR (Pt.1607) 369 at 396 – 397, per Kekere-Ekun, JSC; where the Supreme Court stated that:
“In the event that the High Court lacks the requisite jurisdiction, it follows that the entire proceedings and any decision reached therein would amount to a nullity and would accordingly be void. Where the decision of the trial court is a nullity, it means there is no valid decision from which an appeal could lie. The Court of Appeal, in the circumstance, would also be bereft of jurisdiction to entertain the appeal before it.”
In this case, the proceedings of the trial court were based on an incompetent writ of summons. The law is that proceedings based on a void writ of summon are themselves void: Adegoke Motors Ltd .v. Adesanya (1989) 3 NWLR (Pt. 109) 250 and In re: S.C. Ezendu & 8 Ors. (2002) 14 NWLR (Pt. 787) 312”.-
CASES CITED
Not A vailable
STATUTES REFERRED TO
Legal Practitioners Act, Cap L11, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004|Traditional Rulers and Chiefs Law, 1979|
