NIGERIAN NATIONAL PETROLEUM CORPORATION V. ROVEN SHIPPING LTD (OWNERS OF ?MT VENTURER?) & ANOR
(2011)LCN/4734(CA)
In The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
On Friday, the 15th day of July, 2011
CA/L/490/2006
RATIO
NOTICE OF APPEAL: EFFECT OF AN INCOMPETENT NOTICE OF APPEAL
It is elementary and a trite law to state that an incompetent Notice of Appeal does not confer jurisdiction on the Court. In other words, where the initial notice of appeal is held as incompetent, there would be no foundation upon which an amended notice of appeal is to ground or stand. The acceptable and laid down principle which is trite still holds true that you cannot put something on nothing and expects it to stand. The two put together would both crumble. The initial notice predicating the subsequent amendment is the foundation and which must therefore be competent. PER CLARA BATA OGUNBIYI, J.C.A
INTERPRETATION OF STATUTE: INTERPRETATION OF THE PROVISION OF SECTIONS 2(1) AND 24 OF THE LEGAL PRACTITIONERS ACT AS REGARDS WHO IS QUALIFIED TO PRACTICE AS A LEGAL PRACTITIONER
The case of Okafor v. Nweke (supra) which was cited by the learned senior counsel Mr. Sowemimo, is the classical locus authority wherein the learned jurists of the apex court in an unequivocal pronouncement interpreted the provision of sections 2(1) and 24 of the said Legal Practitioners Act which reproduction would be necessary for better comprehension and appreciation thereof: “2(7) 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. 24. In this Act, unless the con otherwise following requires, the expressions have the meaning hereby assigned to them respectively that is say- “Legal Practitioner” means a person entitled in accordance with the provisions with Act to practice as a barrister and solicitor, either generally or for the purposes of any particular office proceedings” By the combined effect of the two sections supra, for any person to qualify as a Legal practitioner within the meaning of section 24, he must have attained the status of having been called to the bar. In other words, his name must be on the roll of legal practitioners. It follows therefore that no name or person outside the designated and recognized “roll” would be competent to qualify. The following question would therefore be relevant to pose at this point: Is the name of “MESSRS SEYI SOWEMIMO & CO” a name of a person registered on the roll and entitled to practice as a barrister and solicitor within the meaning of the Legal practitioner’s Act? If the answer is in the positive, the name must be on the roll within the interpretation by their Lordships in the case of Okafor v Nweke supra’ In that case for instance, His Lordship Onnoghen JSC where considering the said two provisions of sections 2(1) and 24 of the Legal practitioners Act had this to say at page 531. “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 in the roll otherwise he cannot engage in any form of legal practice in Nigeria.” Also in the same tone, his Lordship Oguntade JSC in his contribution fielded the view wherein he condemned the practice by non barrister and solicitors as unconventional and wrong despite the ongoing norm being followed, which the learned jurists concluded should not be allowed to continue or be encouraged. PER CLARA BATA OGUNBIYI, J.C.A
COURT PROCESS: WHETHER A COURT PROCESS SIGNED IN THE NAME UNDER WHICH A LEGAL PRACTITIONER PRACTICING ALONE IS REGISTERED, WILL BE COMPETENT; EFFECT A COURT PROCESS NOT ISSUED BY A LEGAL PRACTITIONER KNOWN TO LAW
The learned senior counsel, while submitting that the firm was duly registered’ sought further to bring his case within the contemplation of the case of Cole v. Martins supra. In that case, the name and address of the Legal Practitioner representing the appellant was given as ,,Lardner & co. 22 Kakawa Street, Lagos. “The notice of appeal was signed in the name of “Lardner & Co. Their Lordships of the apex court while relying on an earlier decision expatiated on the effect of a notice of appeal signed in the name of a firm of Solicitors. In other words reference was made to the case of The Registered Trustees of Apostolic Church, Lagos Area v. Rahman Akindele 1967 NWLR 263 wherein the apex court had this to say at page 265, on an account of a signature on the prescribed form of appeal bearing “J.A. Cole for J.A. Cole & Co.- “Mr. J.A. Cole is admittedly a duly registered legal practitioner, and entitled to practice as such under the Legal Practitioners Act, 1962. He has no partner in his practice, but he has registered the name of J.A. Cole & Co. under the Registration of Business Names Act, 1961 and uses that name in his practice………………………………in our view the business name was correctly given as that of the legal practitioner representing the appellant. In signing the notice of appeal, Mr. Cole used his name, that is to say, the name in which he is registered as a legal practitioner, we hold that on any interpretation of the rules there was sufficient compliance with them” In Cole V Martins, and applying the principle in the case of the Registered Trustees of Apostolic church Lagos Area v. Rahman Akindele, under reference, in the same way Mr. J.A. Cole was practicing on his own under the registered business name of J.A. Cole & Co., so was Mr. H.A. Lardner also practicing alone under the registered business name of “Lardner & Co.” The effect however was that where only one person constituted that business he was appropriately described in the term of the registered business name. In other words, it was held that where a legal practitioner practicing alone gives the name under which he is registered as a business name that would suffice and apply as if the legal practitioner’s name is synonymous to the business name. In Cole v. Martin, there was evidence that Mr. H. A. Lardner was practicing alone under the registered business name of “Lardner & Co”. It was further noted that the effect of registering a business name under the Registration of Business Names Act, 1961 was that where only one person constituted that business it was correct to describe him in the terms of the registered business name. In other words that Lardner & co. was solely referred to as Mr. H.A. Lardner. As a corollary, and in the case at hand, there is no evidence before us that MESSRS SEYI SOWEMIMO & co. was a legal practitioner registered under sections 2(1) and 24 of the Legal practitioners Act. There is also no evidence that the person so designated was same in chambers and also practices alone. The relationship drawn by the learned senior counsel Mr. Sowemimo to the authority in Cole v Martins is, with all respect misconceived’ The error I hold is fundamental. In the circumstance it is my view therefore that the case of Ogundele v Agiri is not a departure from Okafor v Nweke as sought to portray by the learned senior counsel. In confirmation of the stand taken, reference can further be made to the case of N. N. B. Plc v Denclag Ltd. (200s) 4 NWLR [pt.9116) p. s4gwherein at page 573 this court in a similar circumstance held the following and said:- …. it is clear that Ibrahim Hamman and Co. to issue is not competent the notice of appeal since the said firm that signed and issued it is not a registered legal practitioner who is competent to issue a notice of appeal. Section 2 (1) of Legal Practitioners Act 1990 LFN. See also section 24 of the same Act which defines a “Legal” practitioner.” Having not been issued by a registered legal practitioner, the original notice of appeal, signed, issued and filed by the said firm is incompetent invalid and null and void since it was issued by person not authorized by law to issue it. The said notice of appeal is also incurably defective.” The said foregoing view was authenticated by their Lordships of the apex court in the case of Oketade v Adewunmi & 4 ors. (2010) 2-8 SC (Pt.1) 14o at 152-153. The existing standing order as it is for now is the authority in the case of Okafor v Nweke wherein their Lordships of the Supreme Court as earlier stated in a unanimous decision interpreted sections 2(1) and 24 of the Legal Practitioner Act cap 207 LFN L990 and held per Onnoghen JSC with reference having been made earlier in the course of the judgment’ The conclusion arrived at in that case was that the processes filed particularly the motion on notice, the proposed Notice of cross Appeal and Applicants’ Brief of Argument in support of the said Motion on Notice were all held as incompetent in that they were not issued by a legal practitioner known to law and were consequently struck out. PER CLARA BATA OGUNBIYI, J.C.A
JUSTICES
CLARA BATA OGUNBIYI Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
ADZIRA GANA MSHELIA Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
JOHN INYANG OKORO Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
Between
NIGERIAN NATIONAL PETROLEUM CORPORATION Appellant(s)
AND
ROVEN SHIPPING LTD (OWNERS OF ?MT VENTURER?)
DIGNITY SHIPPING LTD (OWNERS OF “MT DIGNITY”) Respondent(s)
CLARA BATA OGUNBIYI, J.C.A (Delivering the Leading Judgment): The background genesis of the facts leading to this appeal arose from a dispute between the appellant and the respondents as to the proper construction of certain clauses in a time charterparty entered into by the parties in November 1995.
The Respondents who are the owners of a tanker vessel named MT Venturer hired same to the appellant for the carriage of petroleum products from refineries overseas to ports within Nigeria and Nigeria from to other locations named by the appellant in several other ports of the world. The Charter party was to regulate the relationship between the parties.
The Charterparty was to expire on 31st February extended by a letter 1996 but was of 1st February 1996 on a month basis, By an Addendum dated 2nd December 1996 the said Charterparty concerning “MT Venturer was amended by substituting the “MT Venturer” with, MT Dignity” and the effective date for the substitution was the 1st day of August 1996. Upon the determination of the Charterparty the respondents submitted their final invoices which included claims for interest on hire payments, which interest they alleged began to accrue after 90 days from the due date of payment, at the rate of 126% per annum.
The Appellant disputes the Respondents’ entitlement to interest in view of the provisions of Rider clause 15 of the charterparty. The respondents contend that they are entitled to interest payments under clause 18 of the charterparty. In consequence of this dispute, the parties agreed to refer the matter to arbitration.
Three arbitrators, namely Prof Kumado from Ghana, Mrs. Funke Adekoya sAN and Mr Babatunde Fagbohungbe were appointed to determine the dispute and thereafter the issue of the respondents, entitlement to claim interest, based on a construction of the relevant provisions of the charterparty, was put to them as a preliminary issue for determination.
on 31st March 2004 a Partial Award was made by the Arbitrators though the reasons for the Award were given only on 23rd June 2004. A perusal of the reasons given for the Award revealed that the Award was a split decision of 2-1 whereby the majority arbitrators upheld the claimants/Respondents contention that interest was payable on delayed of payment of hire fees. The Reasons for the Award did nor the minority arbitrator nor did it contain the terms of the minority or dissenting opinion. Also no dissenting opinion was attached to the majority Award.
Being dissatisfied with the terms of the partial appellants Award, they applied to the Federal High court to set aside the said Award. The application was predicated on the fact that the arbitrators had misconstrued the provisions of the charterparty by adopting principles of construction which the law does not countenance, that the construction put on the Charterparty was tantamount to rewriting the contract for the parties and that this had occasioned a miscarriage of justice. A page 3 – 6 of the record is in evidence.
The court however dismissed the application: in a Ruling delivered on 6th February 2006 by Justice G.C. Okeke, the trial judge took the view that once specific questions of law are referred to an arbitrator and he decides it, the court cannot intervene notwithstanding that the court itself may have come to a different conclusion. A page 91-102 of the record is in reference.
Again the appellant was dissatisfied with the Ruling of the Federal High court, and hence the filing of a Notice of Appeal against same which is the subject Matter now before us.
The said Notice and grounds of appeal as well as their particulars are contained at pages 105 – L07 of the record of appeal which same was filed on the 4th May, 2006 and containing four grounds of appeal. The appeal was entered in this court on the 12th July, 2006. The notice of appeal with leave of this court sought and obtained was, on 15th March 2008 amended and parties in accordance with the Rules of court did file their respective briefs of arguments.
On the 19th January 2011 counsel were invited to address the court on the competency or not of the Notice of appeal which at pages 105 – 107 was signed by MESSRS’ SEYI SOWEMIMO & Co., as the appellant’s counsel. Before us on the 1st June 2011 respective counsel submitted their arguments as directed by the court. Also on the application by the senior counsel Mr. Babatunde Koku, SAN, representing the respondents, leave was granted by this court that the substantive appeal be argued following the submission the competence on or not of the notice of appeal.
This’ the learned senior counsel argued is convenient as it will serve a prelude to allow the taking of the competence of the notice of appeal first as a preliminary issue serving as the gateway for the determination and disposal of the entire appear. The procedure the learned senior counsel further affirmed is in consonance with the decision in the case of Tanko v U.B.A. Plc (2010) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1221) 80.
I have considered the foregoing authority wherein their Lordships of the apex court approved the duty on this court while deciding appear on preliminary point of jurisdiction to proceed in the alternative to decide the appeal on the merit. In other words and as rightly sought by the learned senior counsel Mr. Koku, it is within reason that the appeal was argued even while the competence of the notice of appeal was hanging in the balance and yet to be determined.
Submitting comprehensively therefore, the learned senior counsel Mr. Sowemimo reiterated the competence of both the original Notice of Appeal in question as well as the amended Notice of Appeal filed 18th March, 2008. The learned senior counsel in grounding his submission informed the court of a certificate of registration of their law firm for confirmation of due registration. The counsel also cited the case of Ogundele v. Agiri (2009) 18 NWLR (pt. 1173) 219 and in particular the pronouncement at page 246 by Ogbuagu JSC. The learned senior counsel further argued that the evidence of registration, will serve an exception to the case of Okafor v Nweke (2007) 10 NWLR pt 104 p.521. That at best, the defect is not fundamental and counsel urged the court in the circumstance to hold therefore that both notices of appeal are competent. Further and final reference was also made to the case of Cole v. Martin (1965) 1 ALL NLR P. 161.
For purpose of the judgment at hand, it is apt that the competence or not of the notice of Appeal in question be determined. It is elementary and a trite law to state that an incompetent Notice of Appeal does not confer jurisdiction on the Court. In other words, where the initial notice of appeal is held as incompetent, there would be no foundation upon which an amended notice of appeal is to ground or stand. The acceptable and laid down principle which is trite still holds true that you cannot put something on nothing and expects it to stand. The two put together would both crumble. The initial notice predicating the subsequent amendment is the foundation and which must therefore be competent.
At page 107 of the record for instance, the Notice of Appeal in question was signed by “MESSRS SEYI SOWEMIMO & CO.” being the Appellant’s counsel. The issue at hand therefore is to determine whether the signature made in the name of the law firm is competent and in accordance with the provisions of sections 2(1) and 24 of the Legal Practitioners Act. The case of Okafor v. Nweke (supra) which was cited by the learned senior counsel Mr. Sowemimo, is the classical locus authority wherein the learned jurists of the apex court in an unequivocal pronouncement interpreted the provision of sections 2(1) and 24 of the said Legal Practitioners Act which reproduction would be necessary for better comprehension and appreciation thereof:
“2(7) 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.
24. In this Act, unless the con otherwise following requires, the expressions have the meaning hereby assigned to them respectively that is say-
“Legal Practitioner” means a person entitled in accordance with the provisions with Act to practice as a barrister and solicitor, either generally or for the purposes of any particular office proceedings”
By the combined effect of the two sections supra, for any person to qualify as a Legal practitioner within the meaning of section 24, he must have attained the status of having been called to the bar. In other words, his name must be on the roll of legal practitioners. It follows therefore that no name or person outside the designated and recognized “roll” would be competent to qualify. The following question would therefore be relevant to pose at this point: Is the name of “MESSRS SEYI SOWEMIMO & CO” a name of a person registered on the roll and entitled to practice as a barrister and solicitor within the meaning of the Legal practitioner’s Act? If the answer is in the positive, the name must be on the roll within the interpretation by their Lordships in the case of Okafor v Nweke supra’ In that case for instance, His Lordship Onnoghen JSC where considering the said two provisions of sections 2(1) and 24 of the Legal practitioners Act had this to say at page 531.
“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 in the roll otherwise he cannot engage in any form of legal practice in Nigeria.”
Also in the same tone, his Lordship Oguntade JSC in his contribution fielded the view wherein he condemned the practice by non barrister and solicitors as unconventional and wrong despite the ongoing norm being followed, which the learned jurists concluded should not be allowed to continue or be encouraged.
The learned senior counsel Mr. Sowemimo in his submission however sought to distinguish the case of Ogundele v. Agiri supra which he argued serves as an exception to the decision in Okafor v Nweke, counsel also submitted reliance and approval in Cole v. Martin (1968) 1 ALL NLR p. 161.
It is pertinent to restate that in addition to section 2(1)and 24 of the legal practitioners Act both decisions made in Okafor v. Nweke as well as Cole v Martin supra were also of significant consideration by his Lordship Ogbuagu JSC in the case of Ogundele v Agiri. At pages 246 – 247 of the report for instance his Lordship had this to say amongst others on the subject:-
“……. I had drawn the attention of Mr. Ajibola off record, to the fact that their brief was faulty in that it was signed by “Ajibola & Co. and there is/was no evidence that it is firm duly registered as such……………even recently, in the case of Okafor & Ors v. Nweke & Ors (2007) 10 NWLR (Pt.1043) 521……….this court per Onnoghen, JSC, dealt with this issue or fact. A partnership or firm unless duly registered as such. With respect, is not a legal practitioner recognized by law or a person entitled to practice as a barrister and Solicitor?
See also Section 2(1) and 24 of the Legal Practitioners Act, Cap. 207, LFN….”
The learned senior counsel, while submitting that the firm was duly registered’ sought further to bring his case within the contemplation of the case of Cole v. Martins supra. In that case, the name and address of the Legal Practitioner representing the appellant was given as ,,Lardner & co. 22 Kakawa Street, Lagos. “The notice of appeal was signed in the name of “Lardner & Co. Their Lordships of the apex court while relying on an earlier decision expatiated on the effect of a notice of appeal signed in the name of a firm of Solicitors. In other words reference was made to the case of The Registered Trustees of Apostolic Church, Lagos Area v. Rahman Akindele 1967 NWLR 263 wherein the apex court had this to say at page 265, on an account of a signature on the prescribed form of appeal bearing “J.A. Cole for J.A. Cole & Co.-
“Mr. J.A. Cole is admittedly a duly registered legal practitioner, and entitled to practice as such under the Legal Practitioners Act, 1962. He has no partner in his practice, but he has registered the name of J.A. Cole & Co. under the Registration of Business Names Act, 1961 and uses that name in his practice………………………………in our view the business name was correctly given as that of the legal practitioner representing the appellant. In signing the notice of appeal, Mr. Cole used his name, that is to say, the name in which he is registered as a legal practitioner, we hold that on any interpretation of the rules there was sufficient compliance with them”
In Cole V Martins, and applying the principle in the case of the Registered Trustees of Apostolic church Lagos Area v. Rahman Akindele, under reference, in the same way Mr. J.A. Cole was practicing on his own under the registered business name of J.A. Cole & Co., so was Mr. H.A. Lardner also practicing alone under the registered business name of “Lardner & Co.” The effect however was that where only one person constituted that business he was appropriately described in the term of the registered business name. In other words, it was held that where a legal practitioner practicing alone gives the name under which he is registered as a business name that would suffice and apply as if the legal practitioner’s name is synonymous to the business name. In Cole v. Martin, there was evidence that Mr. H. A. Lardner was practicing alone under the registered business name of “Lardner & Co”. It was further noted that the effect of registering a business name under the Registration of Business Names Act, 1961 was that where only one person constituted that business it was correct to describe him in the terms of the registered business name. In other words that Lardner & co. was solely referred to as Mr. H.A. Lardner. As a corollary, and in the case at hand, there is no evidence before us that MESSRS SEYI SOWEMIMO & co. was a legal practitioner registered under sections 2(1) and 24 of the Legal practitioners Act. There is also no evidence that the person so designated was same in chambers and also practices alone. The relationship drawn by the learned senior counsel Mr. Sowemimo to the authority in Cole v Martins is, with all respect misconceived’ The error I hold is fundamental. In the circumstance it is my view therefore that the case of Ogundele v Agiri is not a departure from Okafor v Nweke as sought to portray by the learned senior counsel.
In confirmation of the stand taken, reference can further be made to the case of N. N. B. Plc v Denclag Ltd. (200s) 4 NWLR [pt.9116) p. s4gwherein at page 573 this court in a similar circumstance held the following and said:-
…. it is clear that Ibrahim Hamman and Co. to issue is not competent the notice of appeal since the said firm that signed and issued it is not a registered legal practitioner who is competent to issue a notice of appeal. Section 2 (1) of Legal Practitioners Act 1990 LFN. See also section 24 of the same Act which defines a “Legal” practitioner.”
Having not been issued by a registered legal practitioner, the original notice of appeal, signed, issued and filed by the said firm is incompetent invalid and null and void since it was issued by person not authorized by law to issue it. The said notice of appeal is also incurably defective.”
The said foregoing view was authenticated by their Lordships of the apex court in the case of Oketade v Adewunmi & 4 ors. (2010) 2-8 SC (Pt.1) 14o at 152-153. The existing standing order as it is for now is the authority in the case of Okafor v Nweke wherein their Lordships of the Supreme Court as earlier stated in a unanimous decision interpreted sections 2(1) and 24 of the Legal Practitioner Act cap 207 LFN L990 and held per Onnoghen JSC with reference having been made earlier in the course of the judgment’ The conclusion arrived at in that case was that the processes filed particularly the motion on notice, the proposed Notice of cross Appeal and Applicants’ Brief of Argument in support of the said Motion on Notice were all held as incompetent in that they were not issued by a legal practitioner known to law and were consequently struck out.
It is pertinent to mention at this juncture that I am very much aware of the submission by the learned senior counsel Mr. Sowemimo, wherein he relied on a certificate of registration of the firm to show that it was duly registered’ With the greatest respect to the senior counsel, I have carefully perused the record of appeal before us and upon which the appeal at hand was entered and I hasten to say that I have not come across any such certificate under reference contained therein the record. There is however a further affidavit deposed to by one Daniel Osai a law clerk in the chambers of Messrs Seyi Sowemimo & Co. counsel to the applicant whereby “Exhibit OS l” was attached evidencing a photocopy of particulars of registration of Seyi Sowemimo & co. with the document being a further affidavit, it presupposes that it is an additional fact to an already existing fact.
In the absence of such, one wonders what the process and the document attached are meant to serve. A further affidavit does not exist in a vacuum. It is also not drawn to our attention that there is any order made and admitting additional record for the hearing of this appeal. That piece of information as well as the purported certificate of registration I hold with all respect, have no relevance to the appellant’s case.
I would just in passing wish to state that the said document was purported to have originated from Corporate Affairs Commission. By its very nature, it is expected to be a public document within section 109 of the Evidence Act and being a photocopy as depicted by paragraph 3 of the said further affidavit, exhibiting same, it is a secondary evidence and which ought to have been certified as provided under section 97(2)(C) of the same Act. Be that as it may it is sufficient to state that there is no iota of evidence in the matter at hand as sought by the learned senior counsel for the appellant that the signatory to the notice of appeal comes within the provisions of the case of Ogundele V Agiri, which is not an exception to the case of Okafor v. Nweke. In the same vein and with the case at hand having been inflicted with similar virus as it was in Okafor v. Nweke, it is not to be treated differently. In other words, both the original notice of appeal filed 4th Ma y 2006 as well as the amended notice of appeal predicated thereon are both incompetent. The processes which brought the appeal, that is to say the Notice of Appeal and also the subsequent amended Notice of Appeal are incompetent.
Consequently the purported appeal itself is also incompetent. Where the originating process, to wit the Notice of Appeal is null and void for want of competence, no valid appeal can hang thereon. I had earlier made reference to the principle enunciated in the case of Macfoy v. A.C. Ltd. (1962) AC 150 at 160 wherein putting something on nothing would result in total collapse.
In other words and in the result of the totality of the submission by the learned Senior Counsel Mr. Sowemimo, the purported notice of Appeal signed by Messrs SEYI SOWEMIMO & Co is fundamentally defective. The consequential effect is that there is no appeal in the matter at hand with same being incompetent and accordingly struck out. With costs following events, I award the sum of N50, 000.00 to the respondents against the appellants.
The purported notices of appeal filed 4th May, 2006 as well as the amended notice filed 18th March, 2008 are therefore both struck out with N150, 000.00 costs.
ADZIRA GANA MSHELIA, J.C.A: I have read in draft the judgment just delivered by my learned brother Ogunbiyi, J.C.A. I agree that the appeal is incompetent and should be struck out. The jurisdiction of this court can not only be activated by a competent originating process and a notice of appeal signed by the appellant in person nor a legal practitioner on his behalf cannot constitute such competent notice of appeal. This defect cannot be cured by any subsequent amendment to the so called notice of appeal. The only option open to the appellant is to recommence the process of appeal.
I also strike out this appeal for incompetence and abide by the order made as to costs in the lead judgment.
JOHN INYANG OKORO, J.C.A: I read in advance the illuminating judgment of my learned brother, Ogunbiyi, JCA just delivered and I agree that both the Notices of appeal filed on 4th May, 2005 and 18th March, 2008 respectively be struck out.
The Apex Court, having given a clear and unambiguous interpretation of section 2(1) and 24 of the Legal practitioners Act in the recent case of Okafor v Nweke (2007) 10 NWLR (pt 104) 521, also cited in the lead judgment, there is no doubt again as to who is a Legal Practitioner and who is not. Thus, a Legal practitioner is no other than a person entitled in accordance with Section 2(1) of the Legal Practitioners Act, to practice as a Barrister and Solicitor, either generally or for the purposes of any particular office proceedings, and whose name is on the roll of Legal practitioners. As far as I can remember, only natural persons have to date been enrolled to practice law in Nigeria. No artificial person has yet qualified as a legal practitioner in this country and as such, no such name appears on the roll of Legal Practitioners.
Thus, the Notice of Appeal filed on 4th M ay, 2a06, signed by “Messrs Seyi Sowemimo & co” purported to be signed by a Legal Practitioner is incurably defective. An amended version of the said
Notice of appeal filed on 18tn March, 2008 is also infected by an incurable virus as you cannot amend an incompetent process.
Accordingly, both the original Notice of appeal filed on 4/5/05 and the amended version filed on 18/3/08 are hereby declared incompetent and are hereby struck out. The appeal predicated on the said incompetent Notice has inevitably crashed. It is also struck out.
I agree that the Respondents are entitled to costs which I also assess at N50, 000.
Appearances
Mr. Oluseyi Sowemimo [SAN] with Miss Aishatu Idrisu and Miss Olatoro AdegunFor Appellant
AND
Mr. Babatunde Koku [SAN] with Miss Tomilola TaiwoFor Respondent
