STANDARD CONSTRUCTION LTD v. ROMAC INTERNATIONAL LTD (2015)

STANDARD CONSTRUCTION LTD v. ROMAC INTERNATIONAL LTD

(2015)LCN/7878(CA)

In The Court of Appeal of Nigeria

On Friday, the 27th day of May, 2016

CA/K/61/09

RATIO

COURT: DUTY OF A TRIAL JUDGE; WHAT ARE THE PRIMARY DUTIES OF A TRIAL COURT

The duty of a trial Judge was well articulated by the Supreme Court, per Adekeye JSC in the case of Momoh v Umoru (2011) 15 NWLR Part 1270 Page 217 at 274-275 Para G- B per Adekeye JSC as follows:
A trial judge has a primary duty to receive admissible evidence, assess the same, give it probative value and make specific findings of fact thereon. He must not impair the evidence either with his personal knowledge of matters not placed and canvassed before him or by inadequate evaluation and should endeavour to avoid vitiating the case presented by the parties through his own wrongly stated or misapplied principle of law. He must carefully examine the evidence and clearly understand and appreciate the issues he has to resolve in the case and then proceed to resolve them. His duty is to reach a decision only upon the basis of what is in issue and what has been demonstrated upon the evidence by the parties and is supported in law.”
The duty of the trial Court, I hold, is to receive all relevant evidence. That is perception. Thereafter the Judge is to weigh the evidence in the con of the surrounding circumstances of the case. That is evaluation. A finding of fact involves both perception and evaluation. See Ukeje v Ukeje (2014) 11 NWLR Part 1418 Page 384 at 406 Para F-G per Rhodes-Vivour JSC; Civil Design Construction (Nig) Ltd v SCOA (Nig.) Ltd. (2007) 6 NWLR Part 1030 Page 300 at 339-340 Para H-B per Onnoghen JSC. per. OLUDOTUN ADEBOLA ADEFOPE-OKOJIE, J.C.A.

COURT: JUDGMENT; THE CONSTITUENT OF A GOOD JUDGEMENT

While each Judge has his peculiar way of writing judgments, the constituents of a good Judgment in a trial Court, I hold, contain the following:
(1) The issues or questions to be decided in the case;
(2) The essential facts of the case of each party and the evidence led in support;
(3) The resolution of the issues of fact and law raised in the case;
(4) The conclusion or general inference drawn from the facts and the law as resolved; and
(5) The verdict and orders mode by the Court,
See Omotola v State (2009) 7 NWLR Part 1139 Page 148 at 168 Para A-F per Oguntade JSC; Ogba v Onwuzo (2005) 14 NWLR part 945 page 331 at 345 Para C-F, per Akintan JSC. per. OLUDOTUN ADEBOLA ADEFOPE-OKOJIE, J.C.A.

COURT: JURISDICTION; THE IMPORTANCE OF JURISDICTION TO ANY PROCEEDINGS AND WHEN IT CAN BE RAISED

It is not in doubt that jurisdiction is the bedrock of any adjudication. It has indeed been held to be its lifeblood. It is so fundamental that it must be resolved before any other step is taken in the proceedings. It goes to the competence of the Court or tribunal to entertain a cause or matter. Where at any stage of the proceedings in a Court, the Court becomes seised of the fact of its want of jurisdiction to deal with a matter before it, it is enjoined to put a final stop to the proceedings in the matter and to strike it out without more, whether or not the point on want of jurisdiction has been taken suo motu by the Court or on the application of the parties. Any proceedings conducted without jurisdiction will amount to a nullity and any decision reached therein is liable to be set aside, no matter how well conducted. See Shell Petroleum Development Company of Nigeria Ltd v Anaro (2015) 12 NWLR Part 1472 Page 122 at 185 Para G-H per Kekere-Ekun JSC; A/G Lagos State v A/G Federation (2014) 9 NWLR Part 1412 Page 217 at 275 Para B-D per Fabiyi JSC; Alawiye v Ogunsanya (2013) 5 NWLR Part 1348 Page 570 ot 606 Para A-C per Chukwuma-Eneh JSC; Inakoju v Adeleke (2007) 4 NWLR Part 1025 Page 423 at 588 Para E-G per Tobi JSC. It is also trite law that the issue of lack of jurisdiction can be raised at any time, even on appeal. See Wemo Securities & Finance PLC v Nigeria Agricultural Insurance Corporation (2015) 16 NWLR Part 1484 Page 93 at 124 Para D-F per Nweze JSC.
There was a caution, however, by the apex Court, where it held, per Chukwuma-Eneh JSC, in the case cited above of Alawiye v Ogunsanya Supra at Page 608 Para G, on the propriety of raising fresh issues, even on the question of jurisdiction. His Lordship held: “It must be observed that unless and until leave to raise fresh issue and as well as the ground of appeal upon which it is predicated is put in place it is not acceptable to raise the issue of jurisdiction for the final time in this Court.” per. OLUDOTUN ADEBOLA ADEFOPE-OKOJIE, J.C.A.

JUSTICES

ISAIAH OLUFEMI AKEJU Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria

OLUDOTUN ADEBOLA ADEFOPE-OKOJIE Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria

AMINA AUDI WAMBAI Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria

Between

STANDARD CONSTRUCTION LTD Appellant(s)

AND

ROMAC INTERNATIONAL LTD Respondent(s)

OLUDOTUN ADEBOLA ADEFOPE-OKOJIE, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): This is an appeal against the judgment of the High Court of Kano State, delivered on the 15th day of November 2007 by Bilyaminu Sabo Adamu J entering judgment in favour of the Respondent, as plaintiff.

The facts of the case are that, by a Writ of Summons in the Undefended List, the Respondent claimed the sum of N27,715,003.52 (Twenty Seven Million, Seven Hundred and Fifteen Thousand, Three Naira Fifty-Two Kobo) as the amount owed to the Respondent by the Appellant for the supply of iron rods. The case was, however, transferred by the lower Court to the general cause list for hearing. Pleadings were filed and variously amended. The Appellant included a Counter Claim in his Statement of Defence.

In the course of trial, the Respondent called one witness. The Appellant called two witnesses. As a result of protraction by the Appellant in the conclusion of its defence, the trial Judge closed the defence of the Appellant and entered judgment in favour of the Respondent as per its Writ of Summons.

?Dissatisfied with this judgment, the Appellant filed a 3

ground Notice of Appeal dated 11th January 2008. Pursuant to the grant of an applications by the Appellant for extension of time to compile and transmit the record of appeal, the Record of Appeal was deemed properly filed on 29/11/12. The Appellant, consequent upon its application dated 22/2/13 and filed on 25/2/13, was granted leave by this Court to raise and argue for the first time, the issue of the lower Court’s jurisdiction to hear and determine this suit. lt was also granted an extension of time to file and serve its Brief of Arguments.

In the Appellant’s Brief of Arguments dated and filed on 16/4/15, settled by Abdulaziz Ibrahim Esq of K.T. Turaki & Co, two issues were distilled for the Court’s determination, namely:
(i) Whether the amended Writ of Summons and amended Statement of Claim signed by Stanley Orakpo and Co., are null and void by virtue of Sections 2 (1) and 24 of the Legal Practitioners Act, Cap L11 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004 and deprived the trial Court of the jurisdiction to entertain the Suit.
(ii) Whether the trial Court evaluated the evidence and appraised the facts at its disposal before entering

judgment in favour of the Respondent.

In the Respondent’s Brief, settled by Stanley Orakpo Esq, of Stanley Orakpo & Co, two issues were similarly formulated for the Court’s determination, namely:
(a) Whether in view of the fact that the amended writ of summons and the amended statement of claim signed by Stanley Orakpo & Co are not certified as true copies as required by the mandatory provision of Section 104 of the Evidence Act (as amended) 2011 this Honourable Court is not robbed of the jurisdiction to entertain this ground 1 on the notice of appeal.
(b) Whether in the circumstances of this case the judgment of the trial Court was right giving the state of pleadings and evidence adduced in the course of trial?

The Appellant’s Reply Brief filed out of time, was deemed properly filed on 11/6/15 consequent upon the grant of the Appellant’s application for extension of time to file same.

The Respondent, in response to these processes, filed, on 8/1/14, a Notice of Preliminary Objection seeking the dismissal of the appeal, on the following grounds:
1. That there is no proper record of appeal upon which the appeal can be

predicated as the one complied and transmitted is incompetent for the following reasons:
a) That entire record of appeal compiled and transmitted was not certified as true copies in accordance with the Evidence Act 2011 as amended.
b) The drawn out judgment of the trial judge at pages 317-378 of the compiled record was not signed by the trial judge as required by law and therefore unreliable.
c) There is no endorsement of the fees paid (if any) for the notice of appeal on the notice of appeal as required by the mandatory provision of Order 6 Rule 7 of the Court of Appeal Rules 2011.
d) No fees was paid for the compilation of the record of appeal as no schedule of the fees paid (if any) was endorsed as required by Order 8 Rule 7 (b) of the Court of Appeal Rules 2011.
2. That it is the responsibility of the Appellant to ensure the compliance with the law and the rules of this Honourable Court more especially as the records were deemed to have been compiled by it by virtue of its application for extension of time within which to compile the records which was granted by this Honourable Court of Appeal.
3. That the exhibit numbers on

the attached documents in the compiled record do not correspond with the exhibit numbers given by the trial Court as show in the attached record of proceedings in the course of trial thereby casting doubts on their reliability.

The Respondent’s Counsel, at the hearing of the appeal, unfortunately, failed to move the Respondent’s Preliminary Objection before learned Counsel to the Appellant argued his appeal and adopted his Briefs of Argument. The bid by the Respondent’s Counsel to argue the Notice of Preliminary Objection afterwards was accordingly refused. Counsel thereupon adopted the Respondent’s Brief of Arguments, urging the Court to dismiss the appeal.

The consequence of the failure of the Respondent’s Counsel to move the Preliminary Objection before the hearing of the appeal, is that the Preliminary Objection is deemed abandoned. See Magit v University of Agriculture, Makurdi (2005) 19 NWLR Part 959 Page 211 at 238-239 Para H-B per Ogbuogu JSC; Registered Trustees of the Airline Operators of Nigeria v Nigerian Airspace Management Agency (2014) 8 NWLR Part 1408 Page 1 at 35 Para E-G per Okoro JSC; Olonade v Sowemimo (2014) 14 NWLR Part 1428

Page 472 qt 487 Para C-E per M.D. Muhammad JSC.

All arguments thereon in the Respondent’s Brief, will accordingly be discountenanced.

I shall, in consequence, adopt, as the issues for determination, those raised by the Appellant, with slight modifications for precision and a renumbering the issues, as follow:
1. Whether the trial judge was right to have entered judgment in favour of the Appellant without evaluating and appraising the facts before him.
2. Whether the amended Writ of Summons and Amended Statement of Claim signed by Stanley Orokpo and Co are null and void by virtue of Sections 2(1) and 24 of the Legal Practitioners Act Cap L11 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004, robbing the trial Court of the jurisdiction to entertain the suit.

The 1st issue for determination is:
Whether the trial Judge was right to have entered Judgment in favour of the Appellant without evaluating and appraising the facts before him.

Learned Counsel to the Appellant, citing Igwe v A.I.C.E. (1994) 8 NWLR Part 636 Page 459, gave the requisites of a good judgment, submitting that a trial Court, as a Court of record, has a primary duty to make

a proper appraisal of relevant and material evidence presented to it and ascribe probative value to same before reaching a decision, putting the totality of the evidence on an imaginary scale. Where the trial Court fails to appraise and make findings of fact upon the evidence, the appellate Court has only one duty and that is to set aside the judgment of the trial Court and order a retrial. He cited Sagay v Sajere (2000) FWLR Part 7 Page 1111 at 1122 Para B-D per Ayoola JSC. And Fashanu v Adekoya (1974) 6 SC 83.

In addition, the failure of the trial Judge to consider and pronounce on the Appellant’s Counter Claim and Set Off, the parties having joined issues, renders the judgment liable to be set aside. A Counter Claim, Counsel submitted, is in the same position as the Respondent’s claim and ought to have been accorded the same attention.

In opposition, the Respondent’s Counsel, referring copiously to the proceedings before the lower Court, submitted that the trial Court was justified in entering judgment in favour of the Respondent. He referred to findings of fact made by the trial Court at Page 326 of the Record, submitting that even though

the findings were made in respect of an interlocutory application, the findings, having dealt with the issues in controversy, constitute a final decision. This, he submitted, is the reason why the Appellant cleverly abandoned Ground 3 of their Notice of Appeal. A decision not appealed against is deemed accepted by the party against whom the decision was given and therefore binding. He cited lyoho v Effiong (2007) All FWLR Part 374 Page 223.

Learned Counsel referred to the pleadings of the parties, pointing out that by the Appellant’s pleadings, the Respondent’s Amended Statement of Claim was not sufficiently traversed, which is thus deemed an admission of the Respondent’s pleadings. Counsel contended that the burden of proving that the goods were substandard lay on the Appellants. There was no evidence given in rebuttal of the claim of the Respondent, merely as to their proof of the Counter Claim. There was thus nothing for the trial Judge to put on the imaginary scale, leaving the trial Judge with the only option of entering judgment in favour of the Respondent. He contended that the pleadings of the Appellant in their Amended Statement of Defence

and Counter Claim fell short of the requirement of the law and so no issues were joined by the parties on the Counter Claim. There is nowhere in the Amended Statement of Defence that the terms of the contract allegedly breached were stated. Even if it were to be argued that the pleadings were in order and that issues were properly joined, the Appellant, he contended, did not lead credible evidence in proof. There was thus nothing to evaluate or review in the testimonies of the defence witnesses.

Counsel argued further that the Appellants had abandoned their Counter Claim/Set Off, not having prosecuted the same to conclusion. The Court thus had no option than to strike the same out for lack of diligent prosecution. He distinguished the case of Odoakpu Community Bank Nigeria Ltd v Ibeto & Co (2007) ALL FWLR Part 350 Page 1409 but relying on Lawson v Afani Continental Co (Nig) Ltd v Igbudu (2002) FWLR Part 109 Page 1736. Counsel, citing the case of Ado Ibrahim & Co Ltd v Bendel Cement Co Ltd (2007) 4 SC Part 1 Page 33 at 45 urged the Court to evaluate the documentary evidence and draw the necessary inferences to avoid unnecessary delays in the case.

An order of retrial, he said, will be inequitable given the facts of this case. He cited Mafimishebi v Ehuwa (2007) All FWLR Part 355 Page 562, Ogedengbe v Balogun (2007) All FWLR Part 366 Page 631 Para B, Adekanbi v Jangbon (2007) All FWLR Part 383 Page 152 at 164 C-D.

evidence by the parties and is supported in law.”
The duty of the trial Court, I hold, is to receive all relevant evidence. That is perception. Thereafter the Judge is to weigh the evidence in the con of the surrounding circumstances of the case. That is evaluation. A finding of fact involves both perception and evaluation. See Ukeje v Ukeje (2014) 11 NWLR Part 1418 Page 384 at 406 Para F-G per Rhodes-Vivour JSC; Civil Design Construction (Nig) Ltd v SCOA (Nig.) Ltd. (2007) 6 NWLR Part 1030 Page 300 at 339-340 Para H-B per Onnoghen JSC.

In the instant case, the brief Judgment of the Court is contained at Page 317 of the Record and is as follows:
‘This is a clear case of the efforts of the Defendant?s to delay a case filed on the undefended on 14/7/04. The case was transferred to this Court on 15/12/05 to be heard on the merits. The plaintiff commenced their case to prove their claim on 27/4/06 and completed in 2007. Then the defendants commenced their defense 15/3/07 and they took 18 and 19/7/07 for continuation. But since then they always ask for adjournment from 9/5/07, 16/5/07, 24/5/07, 28/6/07, 17/7/07, 18/7/07, 23/7/07,

4/10/07, 16/10/07, 17/10/07, 31/10/07 and today 15/11/07.
In the circumstances, the Court has decided to close the defense of the defense, alter refusal of the defendant counsel to proceed with his defense. That the right of Addresses is hereby waived and abandoned because the defendant has habitually been taking this opportunity of Address to apply for continuation of defense.
(l)The Court therefore enter judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of N29,366,726.42 (Twenty Nine Million Three Hundred and Sixty Six Thousand, Seven Hundred and Twenty Six Naira, Forty Two Kobo) being the total indebtedness of the defendant’s to the plaintiff.
(2)That the defendant will pay 10% Court rate of interest on this amount as from today until the whole judgment debt is liquidated.
(3) That the Defendant shall also pay N2.9 million as general damages.
(4) That the defendant shall also pay N30,000.00 as cost or the fees, expenses and appearances of the plaintiff.”

While each Judge has his peculiar way of writing judgments, the constituents of a good Judgment in a trial Court, I hold, contain the following:
(1) The issues or

questions to be decided in the case;
(2) The essential facts of the case of each party and the evidence led in support;
(3) The resolution of the issues of fact and law raised in the case;
(4) The conclusion or general inference drawn from the facts and the law as resolved; and
(5) The verdict and orders mode by the Court,
See Omotola v State (2009) 7 NWLR Part 1139 Page 148 at 168 Para A-F per Oguntade JSC; Ogba v Onwuzo (2005) 14 NWLR part 945 page 331 at 345 Para C-F, per Akintan JSC.

In the instant case, these constituents are sadly lacking. Even though some of the witnesses had given evidence there was no reference whatsoever to the evidence of the witnesses or the exhibits tendered.

?The Respondent’s Counsel wishes me to refer to findings made by the trial judge in a ruling on a motion before it. This, the Court cannot do, as findings in an interlocutory ruling cannot take the place of findings to be made in a final judgment. The gross error made by the trial Judge was, no doubt, consequent upon the frustrating antics of Counsel to the Appellant in the lower Court. This notwithstanding, I must resolve the 1st issue for

determination in favour of the Appellant.

The 2nd issue for determination is:
Whether the amended Writ of Summons and Amended Statement of Claim signed by Stanley Orokpo and Co ore null and void by virtue of Sections 2(1) and 24 of the Legal Practitioners Act Cap L11 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004, robbing the trial Court of the jurisdiction to entertain the suit.

Arguing this issue, learned Counsel to the Appellant, citing Sections 2(1) and 24 of the Legal Practitioners Act Cap L11 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004, submitted that Stanley Orokpo & Co, not being a Legal Practitioner, cannot legally file or sign any process in the Courts. The Amended Writ of Summons and Amended Statement of Claim, dated 30th March 2006 and signed in the said name, are accordingly incompetent and therefore null and void.

Counsel cited the following cases:
1. Okafor v Nweke (2007) All FWLR Part 368 Page 1016;
2. New Nigeria Bank Plc v Dendag Ltd (2005) 4 NWLR Part 916 Page 549;
3. Nwani v Bakari (2005) All FWLR Part 281 Page 1803;
4. Registered Trustees of Apostolic Church, Lagos Area v Rahman Akindele (1967) NMLR 263 at

265.

He submitted further that these processes, being incompetent, the lower Court lacked jurisdiction to have entertained the suit, the same having been initiated by incompetent processes. He cited a plethora of authorities, including Madukolu v Nkemdilim (1962) ANLR 587; Skenconsult (Nig) Ltd v Ukey (1981) 12 SC 6; Inakoju v Adeleke (2007) All FWLR Part 353 Page 3; Mobil Producing Nigeria Unltd v Monokpo (2004) All FWLR Part 195 Page 576. The fact that the Appellant joined issues with the Respondent by filing a Statement of Defence and Counter Claim in ignorance of this lack of jurisdiction is immaterial, he said, as parties cannot by consent confer jurisdiction on the Court.

In response, the Respondent’s Counsel submitted that he was adopting the arguments proffered in support of the Respondent’s Preliminary Objection, to wit, that the Record of Appeal was not certified according to law nor proof of fees paid for the compilation of the Record.

Having discountenanced the Preliminary Objection, the Respondent’s submission, I hold, goes to no effect. I shall, however, consider this issue on its merits.

?It is not in doubt that jurisdiction

is the bedrock of any adjudication. It has indeed been held to be its lifeblood. It is so fundamental that it must be resolved before any other step is taken in the proceedings. It goes to the competence of the Court or tribunal to entertain a cause or matter. Where at any stage of the proceedings in a Court, the Court becomes seised of the fact of its want of jurisdiction to deal with a matter before it, it is enjoined to put a final stop to the proceedings in the matter and to strike it out without more, whether or not the point on want of jurisdiction has been taken suo motu by the Court or on the application of the parties. Any proceedings conducted without jurisdiction will amount to a nullity and any decision reached therein is liable to be set aside, no matter how well conducted. See Shell Petroleum Development Company of Nigeria Ltd v Anaro (2015) 12 NWLR Part 1472 Page 122 at 185 Para G-H per Kekere-Ekun JSC; A/G Lagos State v A/G Federation (2014) 9 NWLR Part 1412 Page 217 at 275 Para B-D per Fabiyi JSC; Alawiye v Ogunsanya (2013) 5 NWLR Part 1348 Page 570 ot 606 Para A-C per Chukwuma-Eneh JSC; Inakoju v Adeleke (2007) 4 NWLR Part 1025 Page 423 at 588

Para E-G per Tobi JSC.

It is also trite law that the issue of lack of jurisdiction can be raised at any time, even on appeal. See Wemo Securities & Finance PLC v Nigeria Agricultural Insurance Corporation (2015) 16 NWLR Part 1484 Page 93 at 124 Para D-F per Nweze JSC.
There was a caution, however, by the apex Court, where it held, per Chukwuma-Eneh JSC, in the case cited above of Alawiye v Ogunsanya Supra at Page 608 Para G, on the propriety of raising fresh issues, even on the question of jurisdiction. His Lordship held:
“It must be observed that unless and until leave to raise fresh issue and as well as the ground of appeal upon which it is predicated is put in place it is not acceptable to raise the issue of jurisdiction for the final time in this Court.”

In the instant case, leave was sought, as aforesaid, by the Appellant’s Counsel, by its application dated 22/2/13 and filed on 25/2/13, to raise and argue for the first time, the issue of the lower Court’s jurisdiction to hear and determine this suit.

The Amended Writ of Summons and Amended Statement of Claim in this case, were signed and issued in the name “Stanley Orakpo &

Co”.
Section 2(1) of the Legal Practitioners Act, Cap L11 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004, states as follows:
“subject to the provision of this Act, a person shall be entitled to practice as a barrister and solicitor, if and only if, his name is on the roll.”
Section 24 of the said Act defines a Legal Practitioner as follows:
?A person entitled in accordance with the provisions of this Act to practice as a barrister or as a barrister and solicitor either generally or for the purpose of any particular office or proceedings”
“Stanley Orakpo & Co?, I hold, by the combined effect of Sections 2(1) and 24 of the Legal Practitioners Act Supra is not a legal person and as such cannot sign and issue legal processes. It is not a cognizable person under the Act, thereby rendering its initiating processes, unfortunately, incompetent.
It was for a similar reason that processes signed in the name ?Chief Afe Babalola, SAN & Co.” were held incompetent by the apex Court in the case of Alawiye v Ogunsanya Supra and so also the firm of “J.H.C Okolo SAN & Co” in the case of Okafor v. Nweke (2007) 10 NWLR Part 1043 Page

521.
In SLB Consortium Ltd v NNPC (2011) 9 NWLR Part 1252 Page 317, the Originating Summons and the Amended Statement of Claim were signed by “Adewale Adesokon & Co”. The Supreme Court, per Rhodes- Vivour JSC set out how processes filed in the Court should be signed. His Lordship held at Pages 337-338 Para H-C:
“All processes filed in Court are to be signed as follows:
(a) First, the signature of counsel, which may be any contraption;
(b) Secondly, the name of counsel clearly written;
(c) Thirdly, who counsel represents;
(d) Fourthly, name and address of legal firm.”
His Lordship further held:
“Once it cannot be said who signed the process, it is incurably bad, and rules of Court that seem to provide a remedy are of no use as a rule cannot override the legal Practitioners Act. There must be strict compliance with the law…”
In the instant case, there was a signature of Counsel but no name of counsel known to law. Underneath the signature was the name “Stanley Orakpo & Co?.
A signature without the name of counsel is incurably bad, I hold, and contrary to Sections 2 and 24 of the Legal Practitioners

Act Supra. All proceedings arising from these defective processes have, unfortunately, been rendered incompetent, depriving the trial Court of jurisdiction to entertain the suit. I again resolve the 2nd issue for determination in favour of the Appellant.

The consequence of the foregoing is that the trial by the lower Court on the incompetent initiating processes of the Respondent, deprived the lower Court of jurisdiction to entertain the suit, rendering the trial a nullity. This appeal accordingly succeeds and the Judgment of the lower Court is set aside.

Each party shall bear its own costs.

ISAIAH OLUFEMI AKEJU, J.C.A.: I had the opportunity of reading the judgment of my learned brother, OLUDOTUN ADEBOLA ADEFOPE-OKOJIE JCA before it was delivered. I agree with the reasoning of my learned brother and the conclusion that the appeal has merit. I allow the appeal and abide by the consequential order.

AMINA AUDI WAMBAI, J.C.A.: I was privileged to read in draft the lead Judgment just delivered by my learned brother, OLUDOTUN ADEBOLA ADEFOPE OKOJIE, JCA. My learned brother has adequately

resolved the issues in the appeal. I agree that the writ of summons which initiated the suit at the Lower Court was incurably incompetent having been signed by
“Stanley Orakpo Esq., of Stanley Orakpo & Co?,
Who is not a Legal Practitioner.
This settled position of Law clearly enunciated in OKAFOR V. NWEKE (2007) 10 NWLR (pt. 1043) 521 has been re-stated over and over again consistently in a plethora of authorities that it is now firmly established that a Court process or any Legal document intended to be filed in the Court by a Legal Practitioner can only be signed by a Legal practitioner within the meaning and intendment of Sections 2(1) and 24 of the Legal Practitioner Act Cap 11 LFN 2004 and not a Legal firm or partnership. See OKETADE V. ADEWUMI & 4 ORS (2010) 2-3 SC (Pt. 1) 140, ROYAL UNITED NIG. LTD. v. STERLING PLC (2008) LPELR 8408 (CA), OGUNDELE v. AGIRI (2009) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1173) 219, NDIS v. LAGOS STATE GOVT & ORS (2009) LPELR – 4611 (CA).
It is therefore now a cliche that any process signed by a firm of Legal Practitioners out rightly flies in the face of the Law as such a firm is not a Legal Practitioner as

contemplated by the said provisions of Sections 2(1) and 24 of the Legal Practitioners’ Act. See DAN AZUMI BELLO V. ADAMU (2011) LPELR 3722, OKAFOR V. NWEKE (SUPRA).
I should also emphasize that it is no longer a moot point that by the combined effect of Sections 2(1) and 24 of the Legal Practitioners Act only human beings called to the bar are entitled to practice by signing or filing documents in the Court. A Law firm or partnership not being a human being cannot sign or file any process or document. Thus where a Counsel is required to sign a document, it is a person whose identity is ascertainable from the roll of Legal Practitioners that must append his signature. See OKETADE V. ADEWUMI (SUPRA), S.G.D. CO. V. OMENKEUKWU (2011) LPELR 5107 (CA), UNION DICON BOLT V. NASIRU (SUPRA).
For this and fuller reasons proffered in the lead Judgment, I hold that the suit was not properly initiated at the Lower Court.
The writ was incurable defective, null and void, amounting to nothing, and afortiori, the entire proceedings could not have been placed on the nothingness. See UAC V. MCFOY (1962) AC 152. On this ground alone, the appeal succeeds and it is

hereby allowed.

Appearances

Abdulaziz IbrahimFor Appellant

AND

Matthew OnojaFor Respondent