AKPAN v. PRUDENTIAL CO-OPERATIVE MICRO-FINANCE BANK LTD & ORS (2023) LPELR-61415(CA)
Principle
โNow, the crucial question to ask which will resolve the issue for determination is whether the act of signing and filing the Court processes in this appeal by the appellant, who is a legal practitioner, in the name of Jerry Akpan, Esq. which is not the exact name on the Roll of Legal Practitioners invalidates the Court processes? I will approach this question and issue from two angles. The first angle is an examination of the law while the second angle is an examination of the facts of this case. On the first angle, the 1st respondentโs counsel has relied on the cases of Ministry, W & T, Adamawa State v. Yakubu (supra); Nigerian Army v. Samuel (supra) and F.B.N. v. Maiwada (supra) as authorities for asking the Court to invalidate the Court processes signed and filed by the appellant. Interestingly, in all the cases cited by the 1st respondentโs counsel, the issue is that the processes were not signed by a legal practitioner. From a plethora of Court decisions, the point has repeatedly been made that a Court process prepared and filed in a Court of law by a legal practitioner must be signed by the legal practitioner whose name is on the Roll of legal practitioners. In addition, it has been the position that a signature place on the name of a law firm is incompetent because the law firm is not a person admitted to practice law in Nigeria. See Okafor v. Nweke (2007) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1043) 521; S.L.B. Consortium Ltd v. N.N.P.C. (2011) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1252) 317; Oketade v. Adewunmi (2010) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1195) 63; Okarika v. Samuel (2013) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1352) 19 and Aliyu v. Okoye & Ors (2018) LPELR-45429(CA). However, the issue here is not the signing of the Court processes. It is not in dispute that the Court processes in this appeal were duly signed and the appellant who signed the processes is a legal practitioner. The facts of this case are similar with the case of Dankwambo v. Abubakar & Ors (2015) LPELR-25716(SC) at pages 22 โ 23 paras. G-E where the issue was that the Court processes were signed by โSam Kargboโ who is a legal practitioner but whose name on the Roll appears as โSamuel Peter Kargboโ. The Supreme Court, per Kereke-Ekun, JSC held that: โIt was not proved that the person who signed processes and conducted proceedings as SAM KARGBO is not a legal practitioner or that he is not the same person as SAMUEL PETER KARGBO that appears on the Roll. I agree with learned counsel for the 1st respondent that there is nothing in Section 2(1) of the Legal Practitioners Act that prohibits the use of an abbreviation of oneโs name or initials in signing documents and/or conducting proceedings in any Court of law in Nigeria. In my view, to construe Section 2(1) of the Legal Practitioners Act in the strict sense urged by learned senior counsel for the appellant would be inconsistent with the intendment of the provision, which is to protect the legal profession from impostors and charlatans. Such an interpretation would amount to enthroning technicalities at the expense of substance and would certainly lead to a miscarriage of justice as has occurred in the instant case. It cannot be the intendment of the statute to punish a legal practitioner who has genuinely been called to the Bar simply because he signs processes and conducts proceedings using an abbreviation of his name as it appears on the Roll.โ? What more can I say? Nothing! I wholeheartedly adopt and apply this erudite pronouncement of the Supreme Court. The result is that from the first angle of law I had earlier set down to treat this issue, it is clear that the processes signed and filed by the appellant as JERRY AKPAN, ESQ. are valid and competent. Though the above decision of mine has resolved this issue, but I will still go ahead to look at the second angle which is an examination of the facts of this case. It is important to observe that it is the 1st respondent, who raised this preliminary objection, that instituted this action at the High Court as claimant. The 1st respondent sued three persons as defendants and one of them is the current appellant who was sued at the 1st defendant. From the writ of summons at pages 30 โ 33 of the record of appeal, the appellant was sued as โBARRISTER JERRY AKPANโ. Again, I have gone through the record of appeal and it is clear that the 1st respondent entered into the transaction which gave rise to this case with the appellant as โBARR. JERRY AKPANโ. See pages 12, 14 and 17 of the Record of Appeal. As a matter of fact, the appellant operates an account with the 1st respondent. The name and account number is โBARR. JERRY AKPAN โฆ Account No. 121110440.โ (See page 14 of the Record of Appeal). When the 1st respondent felt that the appellant was not keeping to the terms of the loan facility, she caused her solicitors, Star Attorneys, to write the appellant a letter of demand. This letter is dated 7th March, 2018 and was signed by Ndifreke Akpan, Esq. (Lead Attorney) and the letter was addressed to โBarr. Jerry Akpan, Plot B16 Ewet Housing Estate, Uyo, Akwa Ibom State.โ (See page 17 of the Record of Appeal). The 1st respondent dealt with the appellant as โJerry Akpanโ and even sued him by that name. The same person the 1st respondent sued has come to Court to defend the suit in the very name he was sued and the 1st respondent has raised objection that the name by which they sued him and in which he is defending the suit is not on the Roll of Legal Practitioners in Nigeria. These facts show that the 1st respondent is not sincere and merely brought the preliminary objection with the hope to ruffle the appellant.โ Per PETER CHUDI OBIORA, JCA (Pp 10 โ 14 Paras A โ F)
