CAMAC NIGERIA LIMITED v. SABACO LIMITED (2016)

CAMAC NIGERIA LIMITED v. SABACO LIMITED

(2016)LCN/8524(CA)

In The Court of Appeal of Nigeria

On Wednesday, the 27th day of April, 2016

CA/L/104/2011

RATIO

PROCEDURE: WHO CAN VALIDLY SIGN A COURT PROCESS
It appears that learned counsel has not fully appreciated the import of Section 2(1) and Section 24 Legal Practitioners Act, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004.
Section 2(1) of the Legal Practitioners Act states as follows;
“Subject to the provisions 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
“Legal Practitioner means 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 purposes of any particular office or proceedings.”
By virtue of Section 24 Legal Practitioners Act, a legal practitioner in Nigeria is a person entitled in accordance with the provision of this Act to practice as a barrister or as a barrister and solicitor either generally or for the purposes of any particular office or proceedings. A law firm is not a legal practitioner and therefore cannot practice as such by filing processes in Nigerian Courts. Only human beings actually called to the Bar can practice or practice by signing documents. See OKAFOR v NWEKE (2007) 10 NWLR (PT 1043) PG 527.
The Rule is that Court processes signed in the name of a law firm without indicating the name of the practitioner who signed them are incompetent and are liable to be struck out. In other words, Court processes must be signed by a legal practitioner known to law. OKAFOR V NWEKE (SUPRA).
In the present case, the learned counsel for the Respondent urged the Court to look at the other processes signed by the legal practitioner to know who owns the signature, in the originating processes.
I am afraid the Court is not foist with such powers to start investigations as to who owns the signature like Onnoghen JSC held in OKAFOR V NWEKE (SUPRA).
“The effect of the Ruling is not to strike out the Appeal, but to put the house of the legal profession in order by sending the necessary and right message to members that the urge to do substantial justice does not include illegality or encouragement of the attitude of anything goes” See IYALABANI & CO V BANK OF BARODA (1995) 4 NWLR (PT 387) PG 20; VESA FOODS AGENCIES LTD v ACCESS BANK PLC (2014) LPELR 2244.
It must be stated without mincing words that a legal practitioner filing an originating process or even any process must be very circumspect. A legal practitioner should make sure that his process is properly signed by a person known to law like Onnoghen JSC rightly held –
“Legal practice is a very serious business that is to be undertaken by serious minded practitioners particularly as both the legally trained minds and those not so trained always learn from our examples. We therefore owe the legal profession the duty to maintain the very high standards required in the practice of the profession in country”.
With these strong words, the Court would not allow any form of carelessness on the part of any legal practitioner.
Where an originating process is signed by a law firm as in this case; it robs the Court of jurisdiction to adjudicate on the matter. PER UZO I. NDUKWE-ANYANWU, J.C.A.

COURT: JURISDICTION; IMPORTANCE OF JURISDICTION
Jurisdiction as has been held in many cases is very fundamental in any form of adjudication. It is settled that a Court is competent when the Court is properly constituted as regards numbers and qualifications of the members of the bench and no member is disqualified for one reason or the other; the subject matter of the case is within its jurisdiction; and the case comes before the Court initiated by due process of law and upon fulfillment of any condition precedent to the exercise of jurisdiction. All the requirements must co-exist conjunctively before jurisdiction can be exercised by the Court. It therefore means that where a Court has no jurisdiction to hear and determine a case but goes ahead to do so, it becomes an exercise in futility as the decision arrived at in such a case amounts in law to a nullity, irrespective of how well the proceedings was conducted. UMANAH V ATTAH (2006) 17 NWLR (PT 1009) 503; MADUKOLU V NKEMDILI (1962) 1 ALL NLR 58 SKENCONSULT V UKEY (1981) 1 6; BENIN RUBBER PRODUCERS LTD V OJO (1997) 9 NWLR (PT 521) 388 SC; MAGAJI V MATARI (2000) 5 SC 46; ALAO V AFRICAN CONTINENTAL BANK LTD (2000) 6 SC (PT 1) 27; GALADIMA V TAMBAI (2000) 6 SC (PT 1) 196; ARAKA V EJEAGWU (2000) 12 SC (PT 1) 99; LUFTHANSA AIRLINES V ODIESE (2006) 7 NWLR (PT 978) 39. PER UZO I. NDUKWE-ANYANWU, J.C.A.
JURISDICTION: SITUATION WHERE AN OBJECTION TO THE JURISDICTION OF A COURT CAN BE RAISED
AN OBJECTION to the jurisdiction of a Court can be raised in any of the following situations:
a) On the basis of the statement of claim; or
b) On the basis of evidence received;
c) By motion supported by affidavit setting out the facts relied on; or
d) On the face of writ of summons where appropriate as to the capacity in which the action was brought, or against who the action was brought GUARANTY TRUST BANK PLC V FADCO INDUSTRIES LTD (2005) ALL FWLR (PT 287) 913; NNONYE V ANYICHIE (2005) 2 NWLR (PT 910) 623; ARJAY LTD V AIRLINE MANAGEMENT SUPPORT LTD (2003) 2 SCNJ 148.
Where the Court is robbed of jurisdiction due to the carelessness of a legal practitioner the Court has no other option than to strike out the process. PER UZO I. NDUKWE-ANYANWU, J.C.A.
JURISDICTION: EFFECT OF A PROCEEDING OF A COURT DONE WITHOUT JURISDICTION
Again, where a Court lacks jurisdiction and proceeds to hear and determine the matter, the entire proceedings no matter how well and brilliantly conducted would amount to nullity. PER SAMUEL CHUKWUDUMEBI OSEJI, J.C.A.

JUSTICES:

UZO I. NDUKWE-ANYANWU Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria

SAMUEL CHUKWUDUMEBI OSEJI Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria

TIJJANI ABUBAKAR Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria

Between

CAMAC NIGERIA LIMITED – Appellant(s)

AND

SABACO LIMITED – Respondent(s)

UZO I. NDUKWE-ANYANWU, J.C.A.: (Delivering the Leading Judgment): This is an appeal against the Ruling/decision of the High Court of Lagos State delivered on the 1st day of November, 2010 by Hon. Justice K. A. Jose.

The Respondent as Claimant took out a Writ of Summons against the Appellant as Defendant claiming the following reliefs:-
1. An Order of this Honourable Court mandating the Defendant to pay the sum of N82,800,000.00 (Eighty Two Million Eight Hundred Thousand Naira Only) to the Claimant being arrears of rent and the value for the use and occupation of the Claimant’s property lying and situate at No. 68, Molade Thomas Street, Victoria Island, Lagos from June 1998 to April 2009.

2. The cost of instituting and prosecuting this suit.

In response, the Appellant entered conditional appearance and filed its Statement of Defence. In addition to its Statement of Defence, Counsel also filed a motion for dismissal of the suit on the following grounds:
?a. That the Originating processes in Suit No. LD/409/2010 the Writ of Summons, Statement of Claim, List of Witnesses and List of Documents all dated and filed by

the Respondent on the 2nd day of March, 2010 were signed for R. O. Atabo, Esq without the name of the signatories being stated as required by law.
b. That the above processes were served on the Defendant without any of them being signed by R. O. Atabo, Esq.
c. That it is by evidence that whoever signed for R. O. Atabo, Esq can be unraveled.

?Replying the motion for dismissal, the Respondent’s Counsel filed a counter-affidavit and written address wherein she contended that the processes were signed by a counsel on behalf of her principal, whose signature is not in dispute. She thus urged the lower Court to dismiss the motion.

In its ruling, the learned trial judge held that the Writ of Summons and Statement of Claim as filed by the Respondent did not violate the express provision of Section 2(1) and 24 of the Legal Practitioners Act Cap 207, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, but struck out the lists of witnesses and documents as she held that same ran foul of the Legal Practitioners? Act and ordered the Respondent’s Counsel to refile same.

?The Appellant being dissatisfied with the ruling has brought this

appeal. The appeal was heard on the following briefs; 1) the Appellant’s brief of argument dated 11th day of February, 2011 and filed the same date; 2) the Respondent’s brief of argument dated 4th day of July 2011 and filed on 5th day of July, 2011 but deemed properly filed on 10th day of May, 2013 and 3) the Appellant’s reply brief dated 18th day of April, 2013 and filed on the same date.

The Appellant in its brief formulated three issues for determination of this Court viz:
i. Whether in view of the incompetence of the originating processes filed in Suit No. LD/409/2010 by the Respondent the Trial Court was right in its refusal of the Appellant’s motion to strike out/dismiss the suit for incompetence and want of jurisdiction.
ii. If the answer to the above is in the negative can the trial Court go on with the determination of the suit in the circumstances.
iii. If the answer to (ii) above is in the negative can this Court strike/dismiss the suit for incompetence and want of jurisdiction.

The Respondent on his part formulated a sole issue for determination in this appeal viz:
“Whether the circumstances in the case of

Emmanuel Okafor v Augustine Nweke and 4 Ors and Oketade v Adewumi are not substantially distinguishable from the circumstances in the instant case and whether given the circumstances in this case, the trial Court does not have the jurisdiction to entertain the matter.

ARGUMENTS
Learned counsel for the Appellant submitted that by the joined reading of Section 2 and 24 of the Legal Practitioners Act only a person whose name is on the roll/Legal practitioner can engage in any form of legal Practice in Nigeria, which includes signing of legal process. He contended that for a person to sign a legal process he/she must be a legal practitioner or must have his/her name on the roll in accordance with Section 2 and 24 of the LPA. Hence the need for a signatory of a legal process to disclose his/her name. In the instant case, counsel submitted that the non-disclosure of the name of the signatory who signed the processes for R. O. Atabo, Esq, PP R. O. Atabo & Co Solicitors to the Claimant” contravenes Section 2 and 24 Legal Practitioners Act thus rendering the Respondent’s case incompetent and depriving the trial Court of its

jurisdiction.

He also made reference to the cases of Okafor v Nweke (2007) 10 NWLR (PT 1043) P521 and Oketade v Adewumi (2010) 8 NWLR (PT 1195) P 63 and contended that the manner in which the processes of this case were signed is just as if it was not signed by a Legal Practitioner called to the bar as the identity of the person that signed is unknown. He urged this Court to apply the decision of the two cases in the instant case.

On issue 2 & 3 Learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that having contended that the Court has no jurisdiction, he contended that the trial Court lacked the power to engage in hearing evidence. He urged this Court to dismiss or strike out the matter as the incompetence in this case goes to the jurisdiction of the Court.

On the other hand, it is the contention of learned counsel for the Respondent that the processes were signed by her on behalf of her principal and that her signature was not in dispute as she had signed other processes in this matter. She referred to the Appellant’s written address in support of the said motion at page 24 of the record of appeal wherein the Appellant acknowledged this

fact. She also submitted that the facts in this case can be distinguishable from the facts in the case of Okafor v Nweke (supra) and Oketade v Adewumi (supra). He contended that the crux of the matter in Nweke’s case was whether a legal process signed in the name of a law firm was valid in law while the crux of the matter in this case is whether a legal Practitioner can sign on behalf of another Legal Practitioner without disclosing his name. He further contended that the provisions cited by the Appellant’s Counsel i.e. Section 2 and 24 of the Legal Practitioners Act do not impose any obligation on a legal practitioner who issues a legal process to append his signature nor does it oblige any legal practitioner who signs for or on behalf of another legal practitioner to disclose his name. He thus urged this Court to hold that the case of Okafor v Nweke and Oketade v Adewumi do not apply to the facts of this case.

?In his reply, learned counsel for the Appellant submitted that the submissions of the Respondent’s counsel that she signed the processes amounts to giving evidence from the bar which is contrary to the law and thereby supported his

argument that evidence will be needed to show who really signed the originating processes. He referred to the case of SUNDAY ADENEYE & ANOR V BUKAR YARO – CA/L/266/2002 of 25th June, 2010 unreported wherein the Appellant in that case signed the Notice of Appeal “for Tunde Odugbesan Esq” without disclosing his/her name. The Court declared the Notice of Appeal incompetent and struck it out for invalidity on the ground that the signatory was unknown.

He therefore urged this Court to dismiss/strike out the suit for incompetence as it is bound by the doctrine of stare decisis to apply decisions of Superior Courts.

It appears that learned counsel has not fully appreciated the import of Section 2(1) and Section 24 Legal Practitioners Act, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004.
Section 2(1) of the Legal Practitioners Act states as follows;
“Subject to the provisions 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
?”Legal Practitioner means 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 purposes of any particular office or proceedings.”
By virtue of Section 24 Legal Practitioners Act, a legal practitioner in Nigeria is a person entitled in accordance with the provision of this Act to practice as a barrister or as a barrister and solicitor either generally or for the purposes of any particular office or proceedings. A law firm is not a legal practitioner and therefore cannot practice as such by filing processes in Nigerian Courts. Only human beings actually called to the Bar can practice or practice by signing documents. See OKAFOR v NWEKE (2007) 10 NWLR (PT 1043) PG 527.

The Rule is that Court processes signed in the name of a law firm without indicating the name of the practitioner who signed them are incompetent and are liable to be struck out. In other words, Court processes must be signed by a legal practitioner known to law. OKAFOR V NWEKE (SUPRA).
In the present case, the learned counsel for the Respondent urged the Court to look at the other processes signed by the legal practitioner to know who owns the signature, in the originating processes.

I am afraid the Court is not foist with such powers to start investigations as to who owns the signature like Onnoghen JSC held in OKAFOR V NWEKE (SUPRA).
“The effect of the Ruling is not to strike out the Appeal, but to put the house of the legal profession in order by sending the necessary and right message to members that the urge to do substantial justice does not include illegality or encouragement of the attitude of anything goes” See IYALABANI & CO V BANK OF BARODA (1995) 4 NWLR (PT 387) PG 20; VESA FOODS AGENCIES LTD v ACCESS BANK PLC (2014) LPELR 2244.
It must be stated without mincing words that a legal practitioner filing an originating process or even any process must be very circumspect. A legal practitioner should make sure that his process is properly signed by a person known to law like Onnoghen JSC rightly held –
“Legal practice is a very serious business that is to be undertaken by serious minded practitioners particularly as both the legally trained minds and those not so trained always learn from our examples. We therefore owe the legal profession the duty to maintain the very high standards required in the practice

of the profession in country”.
With these strong words, the Court would not allow any form of carelessness on the part of any legal practitioner.
Where an originating process is signed by a law firm as in this case; it robs the Court of jurisdiction to adjudicate on the matter.
Jurisdiction as has been held in many cases is very fundamental in any form of adjudication. It is settled that a Court is competent when the Court is properly constituted as regards numbers and qualifications of the members of the bench and no member is disqualified for one reason or the other; the subject matter of the case is within its jurisdiction; and the case comes before the Court initiated by due process of law and upon fulfillment of any condition precedent to the exercise of jurisdiction. All the requirements must co-exist conjunctively before jurisdiction can be exercised by the Court. It therefore means that where a Court has no jurisdiction to hear and determine a case but goes ahead to do so, it becomes an exercise in futility as the decision arrived at in such a case amounts in law to a nullity, irrespective of how well the proceedings was

conducted. UMANAH V ATTAH (2006) 17 NWLR (PT 1009) 503; MADUKOLU V NKEMDILI (1962) 1 ALL NLR 58???
SKENCONSULT V UKEY (1981) 1 6; BENIN RUBBER PRODUCERS LTD V OJO (1997) 9 NWLR (PT 521) 388 SC; MAGAJI V MATARI (2000) 5 SC 46; ALAO V AFRICAN CONTINENTAL BANK LTD (2000) 6 SC (PT 1) 27; GALADIMA V TAMBAI (2000) 6 SC (PT 1) 196; ARAKA V EJEAGWU (2000) 12 SC (PT 1) 99; LUFTHANSA AIRLINES V ODIESE (2006) 7 NWLR (PT 978) 39.

AN OBJECTION to the jurisdiction of a Court can be raised in any of the following situations:
a) On the basis of the statement of claim; or
b) On the basis of evidence received;
c) By motion supported by affidavit setting out the facts relied on; or
d) On the face of writ of summons where appropriate as to the capacity in which the action was brought, or against who the action was brought GUARANTY TRUST BANK PLC V FADCO INDUSTRIES LTD (2005) ALL FWLR (PT 287) 913; NNONYE V ANYICHIE (2005) 2 NWLR (PT 910) 623; ARJAY LTD V AIRLINE MANAGEMENT SUPPORT LTD (2003) 2 SCNJ 148.

Where the Court is robbed of jurisdiction due to the carelessness of a legal practitioner the Court has no other option than to

strike out the process.

The originating process in this suit is incompetent having been signed by a law firm unknown to law. This issue is therefore resolved in favour of the Appellant.

There is no value in the Court dealing with the other two (2) issues since the Court has been robbed of its jurisdiction.

This appeal is allowed. The suit filed in the lower Court is incompetent and therefore struck out.

I make no orders as to costs.

SAMUEL CHUKWUDUMEBI OSEJI, J.C.A.: I have read in its draft form, the judgment of my learned brother U.I. Ndukwe-Anyanwu JCA.

I agree with the reasoning and conclusion that this appeal is meritorious and ought to be allowed.

I also will, and hereby allow the appeal and equally abide by the consequential orders made in the lead judgment including order as to costs.

TIJJANI ABUBAKAR, J.C.A.: Before a Court becomes competent to assume jurisdiction in respect of any matter, it must be properly constituted with regards to number and qualification of its members, the subject matter of litigation must be within its jurisdiction, the action

must be initiated by due process of law, and any condition precedent to the exercise of its jurisdiction must have been fulfilled. See: MADUKOLU V. NKEMDILIM (1962) 1 ALL NLR 587, DANGANA & ANOR VS. USMAN & 4 ORS (2012) 2 S.C (PT. III) 103, AND N.U.R.T.W & ANOR VS. R.T.E.A.N & 5 ORS (2012) 1 S.C (PT. II) 119.

Again, where a Court lacks jurisdiction and proceeds to hear and determine the matter, the entire proceedings no matter how well and brilliantly conducted would amount to nullity.

In the instant appeal, the initiating process suffered fundamental defect having been signed by a person unknown to law, such a process cannot be used as pedestal to concrete any decision.

I am in total agreement with my Learned Brother Uzo I. Ndukwe-Anyanwu, JCA that where the Court is robbed of jurisdiction it has no other option than to strike out the incompetent process. I join my learned brother in holding that this appeal is meritorious and is therefore allowed.

I abide by all consequential orders including order on cost.

Appearances

E. C. Nwosu For Appellant

AND For Respondent