Under the 2004 Rules, the provision of Order 4 Rule 17 is clear that the certificate of pre-action counseling shall be signed by counsel and the litigant. It did not refer to any Form under the Appendix. Indeed there is no specific Form listed under the appendix exhibiting the format for a certificate of pre-action counseling. On the other hand, the 2018 Rules under its Order 2 Rule 8, and Order 2 Rule 2 (e) provides that the certificate of pre-action counseling shall be ‘as in Form 6’.
Now, Form 6 of the 2018 Rules makes provisions only for the name and signature of the Legal practitioner. This means that the name and signature of the litigant is not relevant. Indeed, if strictly interpreted, it is the legal practitioner that has provided the counseling to his client on the strength and weakness of the case and the possibility of reconciliation between the parties. It is him who ought to sign to show he has complied with the requirements of the Rules. Again the law is trite that the express mention of a thing excludes the others – expressiouniusexclusioalterius.[1] Order 2 rule 8, and Order 2 rule 2 (e) have expressly mentioned that the certificate of pre-action counseling shall be ‘as in Form 6’, it thus excludes every other format.
In other words, all writs that were filed under the 2004 Rules shall be accompanied inter alia, by a certificate of pre-action counseling signed by the legal practitioner and the litigant. Where there are more than one litigants, the court has held that, one of the litigant may sign, ‘showing that parties (more than one litigant) have been advised’.[2] All writs filed under the 2018 Rules shall be accompanied inter alia, by a certificate of pre-action counseling named and signed by only the legal practitioner. It is however, the opinion of this writer that any certificate of pre-action counseling filed bearing the names and signatures of both the legal practitioner and the litigant is a mere surplausage, and still valid.
[1]Obi v INEC and others (2007) LPELR-9263(CA);Major & Co. Ltd. v Schroeder (1992) 2 NWLR (Pt 101) 44 – 5 paras G- A.
[2]Engr. Isa Fago and another v Mrs . Patricia Etteh decided on the 17th day of May 2019 (Unreported) Per CN Oji J [5].