BY CHIOMA ANGELA OKEKE
Section 2(1) of the Legal Practitioners Act, Cap L11, 2004, provides as follows:
Subject to provisions of this Act, a person shall be entitled to practice as barrister and solicitor if and only if, his name is on the roll.
And Section 24 of the same Act (Interpretation Section) says that:
In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires, the following expressions have the meaning assigned to them respectively, that is to say – –
“Legal Practitioner” means a person entitled in accordance with the provisions of this Act to practice as a barrister or solicitor, either generally or for the purposes of any particular office or proceedings-
The Supreme Court has considered the above provisions of the said Act in quite a number of cases. For instance, in the well-known case of Okafor v Nweke,[1] wherein a Motion on Notice was signed by J.H.C. Okolo SAN & Co, the Court per Onnoghen, JSC (as he then was), categorically stated as follows –
The combined effect of the above provisions is that for a person to be qualified to practice as a legal practitioner he must have his name in the roll, otherwise, he cannot engage in any form of legal practice in Nigeria. – The law does not say that what should be in the roll should be the signature of the legal practitioner but his name. That apart, it is very clear that by looking at the documents, the signature which learned counsel claimed to be his really belongs to J.H.C Okolo SAN & Co or was appended on its behalf since it was signed on top of that name. Since both counsel agree that J.H.C. Okolo, SAN & Co is not a legal practitioner recognized by the law, it follows that the said J.H.C. Okolo SAN & Co cannot legally sign and/or file any processing the Courts and as such the Motion on Notice – – Notice of Cross-Appeal and brief of argument – – all signed and issued by the firm known and called J.H. C. Okolo SAN & Co are incompetent in law particularly as the said firm of J.H.C. Okolo SANG Co is not a registered legal practitioner. See also SLB Consortium V. NNPC (2016) 9NWLR (Pt. 1252) 317, wherein this Court aptly observed as follows on a similar Issue –
The signature of “Adewale Adesokan & Co” on the originating summons robs the process of competence ab initio as the said firm is not a registered legal practitioner enrolled to practice law as Barrister and Solicitor in this Court- – – All the proceedings, which rested on the inchoate originating summons, are deemed not to have taken place in law. One cannot put something on nothing and expect it to stand. This is as stated in Macfoy v UAC (supra)
One cannot put something on nothing and expect it to stand, which is what both Parties appear to have lost sight of, as they focused their attention on everything else except the elephant in the room.
Also in Ministry of W. & T., Adamawa State v Yakubu,[2] the Court very aptly observed that, the fatal effect of the signing of an originating process by a law firm is that the entire Suit is incompetent ab initio. It is obvious that a court process signed by a law firm is incompetent. Now, what happens where the process was signed by an unnamed person for a named person? In other words, what will be the status of a process where someone merely appends his signature and further indicates that he signed the process for (ff) a named person.
In the recent case of NNPC v Roven Shipping Ltd & 1 Or,[3] the originating process was signed by an unnamed person, for and on behalf of Seyi Sowemimo, SAN. Both the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court held the originating process grossly incompetent and observed thus, “A cursory look at the originating process – – shows that the process ex-facie is incompetent because it was not signed by a legal practitioner representing the Applicant or a person known to law.” The Court further noted that once it cannot be ascertained whether the signatory is a legal practitioner or not, it makes the process incompetent. The Court has made it clear that once it cannot be said who signed the process, that process is incurably bad.[4] This is so because a signature identifies a document as an act of a particular person and without a signature, the document cannot pass as the act of such an unnamed person; it is, therefore, totally useless.[5]
In summary, every originating process should be signed and the name of the legal practitioner (not a law firm) ie a person entitled in accordance with the provisions of Section 2(1) of the Legal Practitioners Act, Cap L11, 2004 Act to practice as a barrister or solicitor, either generally or for the purposes of any particular office or proceedings, written and stated.[6] Additionally, one cannot append his or her signature on behalf of another named person.
[1] (2007) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1043) 521; (2007) LPELR-2412(SC).
[2] (2013) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1351) 481SC.
[3] (SC. 815/2014) 21 February 2019.
[4] SLB Consortium v NNPC (2016) 9NWLR (Pt. 1252) 317.
[5] Tsalibawa v Habiba (1991) 2NWLR (Pt. 174) 461.
[6] Okafor v Nweke (2007) 10 NWLR Pt 1043 521.