ALHAJI ABDULKAREEM LAARO BUHARI & ANOR v. ALHAJI MUHAMMED ALIYU ADEBAYO & ORS
(2014)LCN/6925(CA)
RATIO
THIS FAILURE TO SIGN THE WRIT IN THE MANNER REQUIRED BY LAW FUNDAMENTALLY AFFECTS THE VALIDITY OF THE APPELLANTS’ SUIT AS IT CALLS THE COMPETENCE OF THE SUIT AND THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT INTO QUESTION.
It is now well established that the person recognised by law as a Legal Practitioner who can sign the writ of summons for its valid issuance is a person who has his name on the roll and entitled to practice as a barrister and solicitor. This is the combined effect of sections 2(1) and 24 of the Legal Practitioners Act, Cap. 207, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 1990 which provisions were considered in Okafor vs. Nweke (2007) All FWLR (Pt. 368) 1016, where Onnoghen JSC stated at page 1026 that “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 on the roll otherwise he cannot engage in any form of legal practice in Nigeria.” In answering the poser who a legal practitioner is, Belgore JSC (as he then was) in Atake vs. Afejuku (1994) LPELR 585 (SC) put it thus “who is a legal practitioner? He is that person that has been called to the Bar to practice as a barrister and solicitor of the Supreme Court of Nigeria as provided in section 2(1), (2), (3) and (4) of Legal Practitioner Act.” See also Aburime vs. N.P.A. (1978) 4 SC (REPRINT) 80; Oketade vs. Adewumi (2010) 3 (Pt.11) MJSC 31.
This failure to sign the writ in the manner required by law fundamentally affects the validity of the appellants’ suit as it calls the competence of the suit and the jurisdiction of the court into question. The importance of jurisdiction in any court proceedings can never be over emphasized. Jurisdiction is the basis for adjudication by court and any adjudication by a court that lacks jurisdiction is an exercise in futility. See Skenconsult (Nig) Ltd vs. Ukey (1981) 1 SC 6; Okereke vs. Yar’adua (2008) All FWLR (Pt. 430) 6262; Madukolu vs. Nkemdilim (1962) 2 SCNLR 34; Utih vs. Onoyivwe (1991) 1 NWLR (Pt. 166)
166.
It is for this reason of its significance that the issue of jurisdiction can be raised at any stage of the proceedings and even on appeal for the first time. See Adegoke vs. Adibi (1992) 6 SCNJ 136; Petrojessica Enterprises Ltd vs. Leventis Technical Company Ltd (1992) LPELR 2915 (SC). Per ISAIAH OLUFEMI AKEJU, J.C.A
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE: SUPERIORITY OF THE STATEMENT OF CLAIM OVER THE WRIT
The superiority of a statement of claim over the writ is in respect of the claim averred therein, as it is settled law that where a relief claimed in the statement of claim differs from the writ, the statement of claim supercedes the writ. See Adebusokan vs. Yunusa (1971) Ail NLR 257; ELF Nig. Ltd vs. Sillo (1994) 6 NWLR (Pt. 350) 258. Daniel Holding Ltd vs. UBA Plc (2005) 7 SC (Pt.1) 18. Ntah vs. Aniagbo (1972) 5 SC 101. Another aspect in which the statement of claim supercedes the writ is where there is issue of whether the claim itself has disclosed reasonable cause of action, in which case it is the claim that is to be examined. See Cookey vs. Fambo (2005) 15 NWLR (Pt.947) 182. Per ISAIAH OLUFEMI AKEJU, J.C.A
