CORAM

---

HARUNA SIMON TSAMMANI

HARUNA SIMON TSAMMANI

HARUNA SIMON TSAMMANI

HARUNA SIMON TSAMMANI

HARUNA SIMON TSAMMANI

ISA AYO SALAMI JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEAL, (Read the Leading Judgment)

HARUNA SIMON TSAMMANI

HARUNA SIMON TSAMMANI

HARUNA SIMON TSAMMANI

HARUNA SIMON TSAMMANI

ISA AYO SALAMI JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEAL, (Read the Leading Judgment)

HARUNA SIMON TSAMMANI

HARUNA SIMON TSAMMANI

HARUNA SIMON TSAMMANI

HARUNA SIMON TSAMMANI

ISA AYO SALAMI JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEAL, (Read the Leading Judgment)

HARUNA SIMON TSAMMANI

HARUNA SIMON TSAMMANI

---

PARTIES

---

OGBOMOSO SOUTH LOCAL GOVT APPELLANTS

---

ADECENTRO (NIG) LTD & ORS RESPONDENTS

---

AREA(S) OF LAW

---

Not Available

 

---

SUMMARY OF FACTS

By a Writ of Summons and a Further Amended Statement of Claim, the 1st Respondent as Plaintiff before the Oyo State High Court of Justice sitting in Ogbomoso, claimed against the Appellant, 2nd and 3rd Respondents jointly and severally; a declaration that the Appellant’s failure to cause to be issued certificate No.3 within time and to pay for materials and work by the 1st Respondent was wrongful and constitutes a breach of contract; payment of balance sum for work done; the return of the Respondents plants, equipment, materials and tools in good condition or their value in money; damages; amongst other reliefs. At the end of the trial, the Court granted all the reliefs sought by the Respondent. The Appellant dissatisfied with the decision of the trial Court, filed this appeal, via his Original Notice of Appeal and later an amended Notice of Appeal granted by the Court. The Respondents did not file any Respondents Brief of Arguments. The Court of Appeal after perusing the Writ of summons and Statement of Claim filed at the trial court discovered same was signed in the name of a Law Firm. It hence set aside the entire proceedings for being a nullity.

---

HELD

---

Appeal Allowed

---

ISSUES

---

Whether the learned trial Judge was right when he held that the Respondents action was not statute barred? Whether the learned trial Judge was right when he held that Exhibit 1 before the Court is a proper notice to commencement of action which also binds the Appellant? Whether having regard to the totality of the evidence on record, the learned trial Judge was right when he held that there was a contract between the Appellant and the Respondent? Whether the Respondent established its case before the Honourable Court below, to be entitled to judgment.

---

RATIONES DECIDENDI

---

COURT, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE, LEGAL PRACTITIONER

---

SIGNING OF A COURT PROCESS – WHETHER A COURT PROCESS SIGNED BY A LAW FIRM CAN BE AMENDED
“The law is now settled that any originating process, and indeed any other Court process purported to be signed by a Legal Practitioner, must be signed by a Legal Practitioner known to the Nigerian Law. Such a person must be a human being who has been called to bar to practice as a Barrister and Solicitor of the Supreme Court of Nigeria. The name of such a person must therefore be on the register (or roll) of Legal Practitioners kept in the Supreme Court Registry, Consequently, any originating process or other Court process signed in the name of a Law Firm will be incompetent and a nullity. Accordingly, any proceeding conducted and judgment given pursuant to such null process will be set aside on appeal. See Zartech Limited v. Olaogun Enterprises Limited (2016) LPELR 41927(CA); GTB v. Innoson Nigeria Ltd (2017) LPELR 42368 (SC); Chief Sule Adetona & Ors v. Abudu Obaoku & Ors (2016) LPELR 41931 (CA); Okafor v. Nweke (2007) 10 NWLR (pt.1043) 521; F.B.N. Plc v. Maiwada (2013) 5 NWLR (pt.1348) 444; Alhaji Tajudeen Babatunde Hamzat & Anor v. Alhaji Saliu Ireyemi Sanni & Ors (2015) LPELR 24302 (SC) and Amidu Ishola & Ors v. Ibadan North-East Local Govt & Anor (2013) LPELR 20477 (CA). Thus in Okarika & Ors v. Samuel & Anor (2013) 7 NWLR (pt.1352) 19, my Lord, I.T. Muhammad, J.S.C. (as he then was) observed as follows:
Initiating a process in a Court of first instance or an Appeal which lies to an Appeal Court has to be sponsored by a person, natural or artificial. In case the Appeal proceeds from a natural person, it has to be filed and prosecuted by that natural person who has the capacity to see, hear, talk, feel or perceive or, where circumstances demand, by his counsel who has the same qualities/capacity. Where the process or Appeal proceeds from an artificial person such as a corporation or a law firm, that corporation or law firm has to be represented by a natural person such as Director, Manager, Company Secretary (natural Person) etc who should have pursued the matter on its behalf or by mandating a legal practitioner(s) who should pursue the matter/appeal to its logical conclusion. This is because, the corporation, law firm or company lacks these human qualities which will qualify it to pursue the matter/appeal to its logical conclusion. That is why it is improper where a law firm is consulted by an individual for legal services to indicate on the initiating process (es) that such a process is signed by the law firm. The law firm is incapable of signing the process.
It is settled therefore that, such a Court process signed in the name of a Law Firm is incurably defective and cannot be cured by an amendment, it being a nullity. The issue is one of substantive law, and not a matter of mere procedure. Accordingly, any originating process filed in breach of a statutory provision, such as Sections 2(1) and 24 of the Legal Practitioners Act, is null and void and cannot be relied upon in any judicial proceeding. See Rev. (Dr.) A. B. Ayanlowo v. Sagamu Local Government & Anor (2016) LPELR 41936 (CA); Akinsanya & Ors v. Shoneye (2016) LPELR 41939 (CA); Ajayi v. Oguntowo & Anor (2017) LPELR 42387 (CA) and SLB Consortium Ltd v. NNPC (2011) 9 NWLR (pt.1252) 317. Thus in Professor A. B. Fafunwa v. Bellview Travels Ltd (2013) LPELR 20800 (CA); this Court per Augie, J.C.A. (as he then was) held that:
The situation is not any different from that in Okafor v. Nweke (2007) 10 NWLR (pt.1043) 521, where the Supreme Court hammered the nail down hard with its decision that a law firm cannot legally sign and/or file any process in the Courts; and that any such process signed by a law firm is incompetent in law, which means that the process is not only defective but also incurably bad, and in a case like this one, robs the Court of the jurisdiction to entertain the suit.
–

---

COURT, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE, LEGAL PRACTITIONER

---

SIGNING OF A COURT PROCESS – STATUS OF A COURT PROCESS SIGNED BY A LAW FIRM
“The Law has become now hackneyed that an Originating Process has to be signed by the Suitor or by the Legal Practitioner representing the Suitor under the various rules of Court. The Legal Practitioners Act 1975 has defined who a legal practitioner is which excludes a Law Firm.
A Law firm cannot purport to initial or sign a process such as the Writ of Summons by which this action is commence, such practice has variously been held to result in a nullity. This one is also a nullity and nothing can stand on it. –

---

STATUTE, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE, COURT, LEGAL PRACTITIONER

---

NON-COMPLIANCE WITH STATUTORY REQUIREMENT – EFFECT OF NON-COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENT OF A STATUTE
“The law is trite that where there is fundamental failure to comply with the requirement of a statute the resultant effect is not a mere irregularity, but a nullity. See Nigercare Development Co. Ltd vs. Adamawa State Water Board & Ors (2008) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1093) 498; Eimskip Ltd vs. Exquisite Industries (Nig) Ltd (2003) 4 NWLR (Pt. 809) 88. The said originating processes are thus null and void. See also the cases Okafor v Nweke (2007) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1043) 521; Oketade vs. Adewunmi (2010) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1195)63; SLB Consortium Ltd vs. NNPC (2011) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1252) 317; Okwuosa vs. Gomwalk & Ors (2017) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1570) 259;Alikor vs. Ogwo (2019) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1695) 331; Ministry of Works and Transport, Adamawa State vs. Yakubu (2013) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1351) 481 on the effect of signing Court processes in the name of a law firm. In Braithwaite vs. Skye Bank Plc (2013) 5 NWLR (Pt 1346) 1, the Supreme Court, per Muhammad, J.S.C. held that:
In my considered opinion, the words employed in drafting Sections 2 (1) of the Legal Practitioners Act, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria and Section 24 of the Legal Practitioner’s Act, Law of the Federation of Nigeria are simple and straight forward. 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.
Further addressing the collateral issue similarly raised in the case at hand as it was earlier raised in Okafor vs. Nweke before then, His Lordship Fabiyi, J.S.C. proceeded at page 21 of the judgment thus:
The decision in Okafor vs. Nweke was based on a substantive law – an Act of the National Assembly i.e. the Legal Practitioners Act. It is not based on Rules of Court.”
–

---

COURT, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE, LEGAL PRACTITIONER

---

SIGNING OF A COURT PROCESS – WHETHER A COURT PROCESS SIGNED IN THE NAME OF A LAW FIRM CAN BE RELIED UPON IN ANY JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
“I am in complete agreement with my learned brother that a Court process signed in the name of a law firm is incurably defective and cannot be relied upon in any judicial proceeding. Failure to commence a suit with a valid Writ and/or Statement of Claim goes to the root of the action. See Madukolu vs. Nkemdilim ; (1962) 2 SCNLR 341; Hamzat & Anor. v Sanni & Ors (2015) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1453) 486; Kida vs. Ogunmola (2006) 13 NWLR (Pt. 997).
–

---

CASES CITED

---

Not Available

---

STATUTES REFERRED TO

---

Legal Practitioners Act|

---

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT