KETSON KOMPLEX INTL LTD & ANOR v. UNION BANK
(2020)LCN/14837(CA)
In The Court Of Appeal
(BENIN JUDICIAL DIVISION)
On Friday, December 04, 2020
CA/B/394/2014
RATIO
WORDS AND PHRASES: MEANING OF “P.p”
In legal parlance, “P.p.” is recognized as the abbreviation of the term “Per procurationem”, which is a Latin phrase for “By proxy”; also termed “per procuration” – Black’s Law Dictionary, Eighth Edition, Page 1256. PER ABRAHAM ADUMEIN, J.C.A.
WORDS AND PHRASES: MEANING OF SIGNATURE
It is now trite that “signature” means:
“A person’s name or mark written by that person or at that person’s direction.”
– Black’s Law Dictionary, Eighth Edition, page 1415. PER ABRAHAM ADUMEIN, J.C.A.
PROCESS: ESSENCE OF SIGNING A COURT PROCESS
Bearing in mind that the essence of signing a Court or legal process is to authenticate the content therein and/or claim responsibility for it, PER ABRAHAM ADUMEIN, J.C.A.
JUSTICE: ATTITUDE OF THE COURT TO TECHNICALITIES
The law is settled that legal contests are not to be decided by our Courts on the basis of legal technicalities but on the foundation of substantial justice. It is settled law that Courts refrain from indulging in deciding cases on legal technicalities. See G. B. Ollivant Ltd v. C. A. Vanderpuye (1935) 2 WACA 368; State v. Gwonto (1983) 1 SCNLR 142; Okonjo v. Odjei (1985) 10 SC 267; Nneji v. Chukwu (1988) 3 NWLR (Pt. 81) 184; Abubakar v. Yar’Adua (2008) 4 NWLR (Pt.1078); Agbakoba v. INEC (2008) 18 NWLR (Pt.1119) 489; Afolabi Fajebe v. Isaac A. Opanuga (2019) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1664) 149 and Murtala Akibu v. The State (2019) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1684) 433;
These days, the Courts endeavour to deliver just and true judgments, driven by substantial justice over technical justice. See Bello v. A. G. Oyo State (1986) 12 SC 1; Anatogu v. Anatogu (1997) 9 NWLR (Pt. 519) 49; Ikpala Estates Hotel Ltd. v. NEPA (2004) 11 NWLR (Pt. 884) 249; Solola v. The State (2005) All FWLR (Pt. 269) 1751); Amaechi v. INEC (2008) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1080) 327; Omoju v. FRN (2008) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1085) 38 and Ifeanyi Ekwuruekwu v. The State (2020) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1713) 114 at 131, per Eko, JSC; where the Supreme Court stated that:
“These days Courts strive to do substantial justice as opposed to technical justice.” PER ABRAHAM ADUMEIN, J.C.A.
PRACTICE: PROCEDURE FOR TYPING “Pp”
As a matter of practice, which is of long standing, the abbreviation “Pp:” is usually typed or written immediately before the name of the law firm of the counsel or solicitor who signed the Court process or legal document. For example, in this case, it would be as follows:
“(SGND.)
Urho Ogbomo-Erameh (Mrs.)
Pp: Urho Ogbomo And Company
Defendant’s Solicitors
28, Cooke Road, Benin City.”
Therefore, placing the letters “Pp”: immediately before the name of the learned counsel instead of the name of the law firm is a mere irregularity and since no miscarriage of justice has been occasioned, it is pardonable. PER ABRAHAM ADUMEIN, J.C.A.
Before Our Lordships:
Moore Aseimo Abraham Adumein Justice of the Court of Appeal
Biobele Abraham Georgewill Justice of the Court of Appeal
Gabriel Omoniyi Kolawole Justice of the Court of Appeal
Between
1. KETSON KOMPLEX INTERNATIONAL LTD 2. CHIEF JOSEPH TOKONI KETEBU APPELANT(S)
And
UNION BANK PLC RESPONDENT(S)
MOORE ASEIMO ABRAHAM ADUMEIN, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): The appellants were the claimants in Suit No. B/267/2003 instituted in the High Court of Edo State, sitting at Benin City, wherein they claimed the sum of N1,314,000,000.00 from the respondent (then defendant) as damages for various losses, which they itemised or specified in their statement of claim.
The respondent, as defendant in the lower Court, counterclaimed as follows:
“WHEREFORE, the defendant counter claims against the plaintiff’s as follows:-
(a) A declaration that the plaintiffs were fraudulent.
(b) General damages for breach of trust – N100,000,000.00
TOTAL – N100 Million”
At the end of hearing, the trial Court, per Hon. Justice Efe Ikponmwonba, delivered a reserved judgment on 08/05/2014 whereby the claim and counterclaim were dismissed. Being dissatisfied with the decision of the trial Court, the appellants appealed vide a notice filed on 05/08/2014. With leave of this Court, the appellants amended their notice and the amended notice of
1
appeal was filed on 01/07/2016.
The amended notice of appeal contains the following grounds:
”GROUND ONE
The judgment is against the weight of evidence.
GROUND TWO
The learned trial judge erred in law when he held that inter alia that “I have considered carefully all the evidence placed before the Court as well as the legal arguments made by learned counsel on both sides and I hold that neither side has proved its case on a balance of probability or preponderance of evidence. This suit is accordingly dismissed” whereas there was no evidence placed before the trial Court by the defendant.
PARTICULARS
(a) By the provisions of Sections 2(1) and 24 Legal Practitioner Act Cap. 207 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 1990, Court processes must be signed and issued by a person and in the proper name of the person as enrolled to practice law in Nigeria.
(b) The amended statement of defence dated 10th day of February, 2004 was signed by an unnamed person for URHO OGBOMO-ERAMEH (MRS) which makes the amended statement of defence incompetent and liable to be struck out.
(c) It is wrong for an
2
unknown/unidentified or undisclosed person to sign Court process for or on behalf of a known person.
(d) All the proceedings which rested on the inchoate amended statement of defence are deemed not have taken place in law.
(e) The amended statement of defence dated 10/2/2004 being a Court process that is fundamentally defective, incompetent, invalid, null and void and consequently cannot be amended.”
The appellants’ brief was filed on 01/07/2016, but it was deemed as properly filed on 25/10/2016. In their brief, the appellants abandoned ground 1 of their grounds of appeal and raised the following issue from ground 2:
“Whether in view of the fact that the respondent’s initial statement of defence is signed by a person whose identity was not disclosed, there was a valid pleading to ground its defence in the suit.”
In the brief filed 0n 15/06/2017 and deemed filed on 21/01/2020, the respondent framed the following issue:
“Whether considering the whole circumstances of this case, there was put by the respondent a defence to the appellant’s case in the Court below.”
3
Learned counsel for the appellant stated in their brief, inter alia, as follows:
“On the face of the amended statement of claim dated 10/2/2003 as disclosed at page 26 of the record of appeal it is signed thus:
(Signed) PP: URHO OGBOMO-ERAMEH (MRS.)
URHO OGBOMO AND COMPANY
DEFENDANT’S SOLICITORS
28, COOKE ROAD, BENIN CITY.”
On how Court processes are to be signed, counsel cited and referred the Court to the case of SLB Consortium v. NNPC (2011) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1252) 317 at 337 – 338 per Rhodes-Vivour, JSC.
Counsel referred to several cases, includingF. B. N. PLC v. Maiwada (2013) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1348) 444, and argued that by Sections 2(1) and 24 of the Legal Practitioners Act, 1990 only a legal practitioner, whose name is on the roll of the Supreme Court, should sign Court processes; that the amended statement of defence signed “for” Urho Ogbomo-Erameh (Mrs.) was an incompetent process.
The learned counsel argued that although the respondent “amended its amended statement of defence by filing an amended statement of defence dated 5/4/2004 an incompetent
4
process cannot be amended and used in Court”.
In urging the Court to resolve the issue in favour of the appellants, learned counsel contended that:
“…the amended statement of defence dated 10/2/2003 (see pages 21-26 of the record) was purportedly signed by an unnamed person for and on behalf of URHO OGBOMO-ERAMEH (MRS.).”
In conclusion, the appellants urged the Court to determine as follows:
“(a) that the amended statement of defence dated 10/2/2004 containing defence of the respondent in the lower Court be adjudged incompetent and void haven been signed by unknown, undisclosed and unidentifiable legal practitioner;
(b) that the respondent did not file its statement of defence in the action, the evidence of D.W.1 therefore is of no moment, since the evidence was not support of any pleading;
(c) that the said amended statement of defence and evidence of D.W.1 are liable to be expunged from the record;
(d) that the amended statement of defence stated 10/2/2004 being a legal process authored by a person not authorized or recognized by the Legal Practitioners Act to sign the document, the process
5
is rendered invalid, null and void and it cannot be rectified by any subsequent amendment to the process;
(e) that there was no case presented by the respondent to challenge the appellants’ case in the suit, as all the evidence led by the respondent went to no issue;
(f) the reliefs claimed by the appellants ought to have been granted in the circumstances.”
Disagreeing with the appellants’ arguments, learned counsel for the respondent contended that the endorsement on the respondent’s amended statement of defence “conforms substantially with the requirements of law and judicial authorities” such as SLB Consortium v. NNPC (supra). Counsel further contended, inter alia, as follows:
“The endorsement has the signature (a contraption of the defendant’s counsel) of the counsel on it, the name of the counsel as Urho Ogbomo-Erameh (Mrs.), the party represented by the counsel as the defendant and the address of the law firm in Benin City.”
Learned counsel argued that the Court could rely on the amended statement of defence of 5th April, 2004 instead of that of 10th February, 2004 since both are the
6
same and predicated on the original statement of defence of 14th August, 2003.
The respondent concluded by urging the Court to dismiss the appeal on the following grounds:
“1. That the judgment of the Court below is not challenged herein and therefore should be upheld and undisturbed.
2. That the original statement of defence is valid, proper and subsisting and therefore the defendant (now respondent) presented a case in the Court below.
3. That the appellants’ case at the trial Court was dismissed not on the basis of a void pleading declared valid by the lower Court but on the failure of the appellant to prove their case on the strength of their case and preponderance of evidence.
4. That the amendment of 5th April, 2004 was predicated on a valid original statement of defence and not the amendment of 10th February, 2004 which is the same as the amendment of 5th April, 2004.
5. That the appellant herein never challenged or even appealed the Orders of the Court below granting the amendments made by the respondent.”
The appellants’ main complaint relates to the form of signing the respondent’s amended
7
statement of defence, because below or after the signature, there is the following endorsement:
“PP: URHO OGBOMO-ERAMEH (MRS.)
URHO OGBOMO AND COMPANY
DEFENDANT’S SOLICITORS
28, COOKE ROAD, BENIN CITY.”
It is clear from the above endorsement that it is Mrs. Urho Ogbomo-Erameh who claimed responsibility for signing the amended statement of defence in issue and not the law firm of “Urho Ogbomo and Company”. In the absence of any clear evidence that Mrs. Urho Ogbomo-Erameh is not a person entitled to practise as a barrister and solicitor, as stated in Sections 2(1) and 24 of the Legal Practitioners’ Act, 1990, the appellants’ arguments are of purely peripheral, tangential and technical importance or relevance. This is because in signing a Court process, the guidelines or requirements as set out by the Supreme Court in SLB Consortium Limited v. Nigeria National Petroleum Corporation (2011) 9 NWLR (Pt.1252) 317 at 337-338, per Rhodes-Vivour, JSC; are follows:
“First, the signature of counsel which may be any contraption.
8
Secondly, the name of counsel clearly written. Thirdly, who counsel represents.
Fourthly, name and address of Legal Firm.”
The endorsements on the amended statement of defence, reproduced earlier in this judgment, substantially meet all the above requirements, save for the addition of the letters: “Pp:” before the named legal practitioner for the defendant/respondent.
In legal parlance, “P.p.” is recognized as the abbreviation of the term “Per procurationem”, which is a Latin phrase for “By proxy”; also termed “per procuration” – Black’s Law Dictionary, Eighth Edition, Page 1256. Therefore, by pre-fixing “P.p:” to the name: “Urho Ogbomo-Erameh (Mrs.)”, it can be easily understood that the said Urho Ogbomo-Erameh (Mrs.) authorized the sign or mark immediately above her name to be affixed to or inserted on the amended statement of defence.
It is now trite that “signature” means:
“A person’s name or mark written by that person or at that person’s direction.”
– Black’s Law Dictionary, Eighth Edition, page 1415.
9
In this case the endorsement “Pp:” before the name of the legal Practitioner – Mrs. Urho Ogbomo-Erameh, in my opinion, is merely to indicate that the mark above or on top of the legal practitioner’s name was at the direction of the said legal practitioner – Urho Ogbomo-Erameh (Mrs.).
Bearing in mind that the essence of signing a Court or legal process is to authenticate the content therein and/or claim responsibility for it, the appellants’ grouse in this case is too trivial to persuade the Court to resolve the issue in their favour, since ex facie by the amended statement of defence Mrs. Urho Ogbomo-Erameh, who has not been alleged to be a person who is not qualified to practise as a barrister and solicitor of the Supreme Court of Nigeria, has claimed responsibility for its authentication and signing.
Without mincing any words, it is also very sad, shocking unfortunate and even worrisome that in an elaborate claim for the huge sum of N1,314,000,000.00, the claimants/appellants would plummet so low and have resort to alleged legal technicalities in urging the
10
Court to uphold and grant their claim. The legal technicality solely relied upon by the appellants is the alleged inappropriate form or format of the signature of the learned counsel for the defendant/respondent on the amended statement of defence.
The appellants have seriously and strongly invoked and relied on the alleged inappropriate format of the 1st respondent’s counsel’s signature as a magic wand which should hoodwink the Court to grant their claim. I think that to insist that the appellants’ claim should be adjudged as duly proved on the basis of the alleged irregularity of the format of the signature of the 1st respondent’s solicitor, which has not been shown to have occasioned any miscarriage of justice, is the zenith of invitation to the Court to indulge itself in legal technicalities in deciding the rights and/or liabilities of the parties. The appellant’s quibble does not deserve any serious attention. The appellants’ complaint can be likened to a party urging the Court to disregard a very important sentence in a legal document merely on the ground that the first letter in the
11
first word of the sentence is a small letter instead of a capital letter.
The law is settled that legal contests are not to be decided by our Courts on the basis of legal technicalities but on the foundation of substantial justice. It is settled law that Courts refrain from indulging in deciding cases on legal technicalities. See G. B. Ollivant Ltd v. C. A. Vanderpuye (1935) 2 WACA 368; State v. Gwonto (1983) 1 SCNLR 142; Okonjo v. Odjei (1985) 10 SC 267; Nneji v. Chukwu (1988) 3 NWLR (Pt. 81) 184; Abubakar v. Yar’Adua (2008) 4 NWLR (Pt.1078); Agbakoba v. INEC (2008) 18 NWLR (Pt.1119) 489; Afolabi Fajebe v. Isaac A. Opanuga (2019) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1664) 149 and Murtala Akibu v. The State (2019) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1684) 433;
These days, the Courts endeavour to deliver just and true judgments, driven by substantial justice over technical justice. See Bello v. A. G. Oyo State (1986) 12 SC 1; Anatogu v. Anatogu (1997) 9 NWLR (Pt. 519) 49; Ikpala Estates Hotel Ltd. v. NEPA (2004) 11 NWLR (Pt. 884) 249; Solola v. The State (2005) All FWLR (Pt. 269) 1751); Amaechi v. INEC (2008) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1080) 327; Omoju v. FRN (2008) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1085) 38
12
and Ifeanyi Ekwuruekwu v. The State (2020) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1713) 114 at 131, per Eko, JSC; where the Supreme Court stated that:
“These days Courts strive to do substantial justice as opposed to technical justice.”
As a matter of practice, which is of long standing, the abbreviation “Pp:” is usually typed or written immediately before the name of the law firm of the counsel or solicitor who signed the Court process or legal document. For example, in this case, it would be as follows:
“(SGND.)
Urho Ogbomo-Erameh (Mrs.)
Pp: Urho Ogbomo And Company
Defendant’s Solicitors
28, Cooke Road, Benin City.”
Therefore, placing the letters “Pp”: immediately before the name of the learned counsel instead of the name of the law firm is a mere irregularity and since no miscarriage of justice has been occasioned, it is pardonable. This is more so, as there is another amended statement of defence, spanning pages 33 to 38 of the record of appeal, which was properly endorsed or signed by Mrs. Urho Ogbomo-Erameh.
Before I conclude this judgment, it is
13
perhaps important to say that I am of the opinion that the controversy in this appeal could have been avoided, if the legal practitioner who prepared the respondent’s amended statement of defence had simply signed it without any pre-fix to his name. This would have made it absolutely clear that the signature on the Court process is not that of a proxy.
In the preparation of Court processes, it has long been held that learned counsel must not only be diligent, they must be thorough and vigilant so that they can properly perform their sacred duty for their client. Thus, in Rookwood’s Case (1696) 13 How. St. Tr.154; Holt, C.J; said:
“It is expected you should do your best for those you are assigned for, as it expected in any other case, that you do your duty for your client.”
To avoid unnecessary mistakes, a legal practitioner who prepares a process to be used in Court, should devote his time to read over the process, for an unintended addition or omission of a word or more could have negative consequences for the case of his client. See Udofia v. State (1988) 3 NWLR (Pt. 84) 533 and Daropale v. State
14
(2013) LPELR – 20676.
Having regard to the ‘brinkmanship’ in legal contests, counsel is required to apply necessary caution in ensuring that his processes are not infected, infested or inflicted by avoidable but erroneous acts of commission or omission. It is better to exercise abundance or excess of caution, which causes no harm or injury to a case, than to gloss or rush over processes only to be confronted by a serious challenge to the competence of the process by an adverse party. The law is that “Abundans caudela non nocet: Abundant caution does no harm”.
It is for all the reasons given above that I resolve the only issue in this appeal against the appellants and in favour of the respondent.
The appeal, therefore, lacks merit and it is hereby dismissed.
The judgment of the trial Court, per Ikponmwonba, J; Suit No. B/267/2003 delivered on 08/05/2014 is hereby affirmed.
The sum of N200,000.00 (Two hundred thousand naira only) is hereby awarded as costs in favour of the respondent and against the appellants.
15
BIOBELE ABRAHAM GEORGEWILL, J.C.A.: I had the privilege of reading in draft the lead judgment of my learned brother MOORE ASEIMO ABRAHAM ADUMEIN, J.C.A. just delivered. I am in complete agreement With the adroit reasoning leading to the inescapable conclusions reached therein. I therefore, adopt the same as mine and I have nothing more to add.
GABRIEL OMONIYI KOLAWOLE, J.C.A.: My learned brother, M.A.A. Adumein, J.C.A. graciously obliged me with the draft of the lead judgment which has just been delivered in which the appeal was adjudged as unmeritorious, and was consequently dismissed with costs.
I agree with the lead judgment and abide with the consequential orders made as to costs.
Appeal is dismissed by me too.
16
Appearances:
G. Erhabor, Esq. For Appellant(s)
N. Uzor, Esq., with him, Mrs. A. I. Areghan For Respondent(s)
