CORAM

---

Mohammed Lawal Garba Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria

Adamu Jauro Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria

Moore Aseimo Abraham Adumein Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria

Obande Festus Ogbuinya Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria

Abubakar Sadiq Umar Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria

---

PARTIES

---

1. LT. COL. ABDULLAHI DAN ASABE

2. SHEHU SAGAGI

APPELLANTS 

---

ALHAJI IBRAHIM BABALE

RESPONDENTS 

---

AREA(S) OF LAW

---

JURISDICTION, LEGAL PRACTITIONERS ACT, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE, ORIGINATING PROCESSES, REAL PROPERTY, LAND LAW, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, APPEAL

 

---

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The respondent instituted Suit No: K/430/2000 in the High Court of Kano State against the appellants (1st and 2nd defendants), Commissioner of Police, Kano State (3rd defendant) and Arc. Emeka Maduka (4th defendant). The suit was commenced by way of a writ of summons seeking declarations that the respondent was the legal and lawful owner of property situated along Malam Bakatsine Road Nassarawa Quarters, Kano covered by Kano State Certificate of Occupancy No. LKN/RES/95/2422, perpetual injunction restraining defendants from trespassing, declaration that 1st defendant was a trespasser, general damages of N5million, and costs. On 21st December, 2024, the trial Court delivered judgment in favour of the respondent. The appellants appealed to the Court of Appeal (CA/K/62/2997), which dismissed their appeal on 10th December, 2013. Still dissatisfied, the appellants lodged an appeal to the Supreme Court. During the proceedings, both parties raised jurisdictional issues concerning the competency of the respondent’s writ of summons, which was signed by “Ibrahim Babale & Co” – a law firm rather than by an individual legal practitioner as required by the Legal Practitioners Act.

 

---

HELD

---

1. The appeal was allowed.

2. The respondent’s Suit No: K/430/2000 was struck out for want of jurisdiction.

3. The court held that a writ of summons signed by a law firm rather than an individual legal practitioner is incurably incompetent and deprives the court of jurisdiction to entertain the suit.

4. The parties were ordered to bear their respective costs.

 

---

ISSUES

---

1. Whether the lower Court rightly affirmed the award of title to the land in dispute to the Respondent in the circumstances of the pleading and evidence adduced?

2. Whether the lower Court was right in affirming the trial Court position that the 4th defendant rightfully sold the property in issue to the Respondent, notwithstanding that the consent to assign was not given to him but Hamareng Nig. Ltd?

3. Whether the lower Court rightly struck out grounds 4, 5 & 6 of the Amended Notice of Appeal and refused to consider the trial Court’s failure to allow amendment of the appellants’ statement of defence and counter-claim?

4. Whether or not the respondent’s writ of summons signed by “Ibrahim Babale & Co” is competent?

 

---

RATIONES DECIDENDI

---

IMPORTANCE OF JURISDICTION – PIVOTAL TO ADJUDICATION

---

The law is that the issue of jurisdiction is pivotal to adjudication and it can be raised at any stage of a litigation process. Its significance cannot be overemphasized, because where a Court proceeds to exercise jurisdiction, when it lacks same, no matter how well-conducted the proceedings might be, and no matter how sound the reasoning and decisions of the Court may appear to be, they are legally null and void.” – Per MOORE ASEIMO ABRAHAM ADUMEIN, J.S.C.

 

---

PRIORITY OF JURISDICTIONAL ISSUES – MUST BE RESOLVED FIRST

---

And once raised, the issue of jurisdiction should be considered and resolved by the Court before proceeding with other matters. – Per MOORE ASEIMO ABRAHAM ADUMEIN, J.S.C.

 

---

JURISDICTION CAN BE RAISED AT ANY TIME – PRINCIPLES

---

It is a settled principle of law that the issue of jurisdiction can be raised for the first time on appeal and it cannot be frustrated even if it was not raised in a trial Court or at an appropriate time.– Per MOORE ASEIMO ABRAHAM ADUMEIN, J.S.C.

 

---

JURISDICTION RAISED WITHOUT LEAVE – COURTS’ INHERENT POWER

---

It must be emphasized that an issue of jurisdiction can be raised with or without leave of Court. – Per MOORE ASEIMO ABRAHAM ADUMEIN, J.S.C.

 

---

JURISDICTION CANNOT BE CONFERRED BY CONSENT – FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE

---

It should be noted that jurisdiction cannot be conferred on a Court by the acquiescence or consent of the parties.” – Per MOORE ASEIMO ABRAHAM ADUMEIN, J.S.C.

 

---

LEGAL PRACTITIONER DEFINITION – REQUIREMENT FOR PRACTICE

---

Section 2 (1) of the Legal Practitioners Act clearly states that … a person shall be entitled to practice as a barrister and solicitor if, and only if, his name is on the roll. – Per MOORE ASEIMO ABRAHAM ADUMEIN, J.S.C.

 

---

LAW FIRM CANNOT PRACTICE – NOT A LEGAL PRACTITIONER

---

This issue has been settled that a law firm, such as “Ibrahim Babale & Co”, not being a legal practitioner registered under the Legal Practitioners Act, 1990 (as amended), cannot by itself practice in a Court of law, for it is merely a business name. A law firm is not a legal practitioner enrolled and registered as a Solicitor and Barrister of the Supreme Court of Nigeria.– Per MOORE ASEIMO ABRAHAM ADUMEIN, J.S.C.

 

---

REQUIREMENTS FOR SIGNING PROCESSES – PROPER IDENTIFICATION

---

All processes filed in Court are to be signed as follows: First, the signature of counsel, which may be any contraption. Secondly, the name of counsel clearly written. Thirdly, who counsel represents. Fourthly, name and address of Legal Firm. – Per MOORE ASEIMO ABRAHAM ADUMEIN, J.S.C.

 

---

INCOMPETENT ORIGINATING PROCESS – EFFECT ON ENTIRE SUIT

---

The summary of my opinion is that where an originating process, such as a writ of summons, an originating summons, an originating motion or an originating petition, is signed in the name of a law firm, the entire action, cause, matter or suit is incompetent and the Court has no jurisdiction to entertain it.– Per MOORE ASEIMO ABRAHAM ADUMEIN, J.S.C.

 

---

INCOMPETENT PROCESS CANNOT BE AMENDED – FUNDAMENTAL DEFECT

---

The fatal effect of the signing of an originating process by a law firm is that the entire suit was incompetent ab initio. It was dead at the point of filing. This highlights the painful realities that confronts a litigant when counsel fails to sign processes as stipulated by law. The originating process, as in this case, is fundamentally defective and incompetent. It is inchoate, legally non-existent and can therefore not be cured by way of an amendment.” – Per MOORE ASEIMO ABRAHAM ADUMEIN, J.S.C.

 

---

MADUKOLU TEST – REQUIREMENTS FOR COURT COMPETENCE

---

Put briefly, a Court is competent when – 1. It is properly constituted as regards numbers and qualifications of the members of the bench, and no member is disqualified for one reason or another; and 2. The subject matter of the case is within its jurisdiction, and there is no feature in the case which prevents the Court from exercising its jurisdiction; and 3. The case comes before the Court initiated by due process of law, and upon fulfilment of any condition precedent to the exercise of jurisdiction. Any defect in Competence is fatal, for the proceedings are a nullity however well conducted and decided the defect is extrinsic to the adjudication. – Per MOORE ASEIMO ABRAHAM ADUMEIN, J.S.C.

 

---

JURISDICTIONAL DEFECT AFFECTS APPELLATE COURT – CONTAGIOUS NATURE

---

Once a trial Court or the Court below lacks the requisite jurisdiction to adjudicate over a matter or case, the malaise will contagiously deprive this Court of the same jurisdiction to adjudicate over an appeal from a decision arising therefrom, on the merit. – Per MOHAMMED LAWAL GARBA, J.S.C.

 

---

JURISDICTION AS BEDROCK OF PROCEEDINGS – FOUNDATION PRINCIPLE

---

It is now common-place, indeed a well beaten legal track, that jurisdiction is the legal right by which Courts exercise their authority. It is the power and authority to hear and determine judicial proceedings. A Court with jurisdiction builds on a solid foundation because Jurisdiction is the bedrock on which Court proceedings are based. The objection to jurisdiction goes to the root of the matter. But when a Court lacks jurisdiction and continue to hear and determine, it builds on quicksand and all proceedings and steps based on it will not stand. – Per ABUBAKAR SADIQ UMAR, J.S.C.

 

---

CASES CITED

---

---

STATUTES REFERRED TO

---

1. Legal Practitioners Act, 2004

2. Legal Practitioners Act, 1990 (as amended)

3. Kano State High Court (Civil Procedure) Edict, 1988

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

 

---

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT