OYEDE & ORS v. ALAKIJA & ANOR (2020)

OYEDE & ORS v. ALAKIJA & ANOR

(2020)LCN/15211(CA)

In The Court Of Appeal

(IBADAN JUDICIAL DIVISION)

On Monday, March 23, 2020

CA/IB/282/2010

Before Our Lordships:

Haruna Simon Tsammani Justice of the Court of Appeal

Nonyerem Okoronkwo Justice of the Court of Appeal

Folasade Ayodeji Ojo Justice of the Court of Appeal

Between

1.PRINCE YINUSA ALANI OYEDE 2.PRINCE MUFUTAU AMOO OYEDE 3.PRINCE KAZEEM ADEWALE OYEDE (For Themselves And On Behalf Of The Late Alhaji Abibu Oyede Family) APPELANT(S)

And

1.MRS. AYOOLA ALAKIJA 2.CAPTAIN DEJI SASEGBON (For Themselves And For The Estate Of Late Dr. A. O. Sasegbon) RESPONDENT(S)

RATIO

WHETHER OR NOT ANY ISSUE WHICH DOES NOT HAVE ITS ROOT IN ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL IS INCOMPETENT

The law is settled that any issue which does not have its root in any of the grounds of appeal is incompetent and would be discountenanced by an Appellate Court. See EMMANUEL VS. UMANA & ORS (2016) 2 SC (PT. 1) PG. 1; DAGACI OF DERE & ORS VS. DAGACI OF EBWA & ORS (2006) 7 NWLR (PT. 979)382; AJIBOYE VS. ISHOLA (2006) 13 NWLR (PT. 998) 628 AND UGBOAJA VS AKINTOYE-SOWEMIMO & ORS (2008) 16 NWLR (PT. 1113)278.
The Further Amended Notice of Appeal contains six Grounds of Appeal. A cursory look at all the grounds reveal that the issue of the competence of the originating processes does not emanate from any of the grounds. This issue however goes to the jurisdiction of the lower Court to entertain the action and affects its competence. The law is trite that an objection to the exercise of the jurisdiction of a Court can be raised at any stage of the proceedings. It is very fundamental to adjudication to the extent that it can be raised suo motu by the Court and a decision taken thereon without calling on parties to address it. The issue of jurisdiction may even be raised for the first time on appeal with or without leave of the Appellate Court. See OLOBA VS. AKEREJA (1988) 3 NWLR (PT. 84)508; OLUTOLA VS. UNIVERSITY OF ILORIN (2004) 18 NWLR (PT. 905) 416; ALIMS (NIG) LTD VS. UNITED BANK FOR AFRICA (2013) 6 NWLR (PT. 1351)613. It follows therefore that this issue raised by the Appellant in his Amended Appellant’s Brief as Issue Nos. 1 is valid notwithstanding the fact that it is not distilled from any of the grounds of appeal. I shall therefore proceed to deal with it. PER OJO, J.C.A.

EFFECT OF FAILURE OF A RESPONDENT TO RESPOND TO ISSUES RAISED IN THE APPELLANT’S BRIEF OF ARGUMENT

It is significant to note that the Respondents did not respond to this issue which was copiously raised in the Appellants’ Brief of Argument. What is the effect of this failure? The Supreme Court in the case of NWANKWO & ORS VS. YAR’ADUA & ORS (2010) 12 NWLR (PT. 1209)518, per Onnoghen, JSC held as follows:
“It is settled law that where an opponent fails or neglects to counter any argument or issues validly raised in the brief of argument or during oral presentation, the issue not so contested is deemed conceded by the defaulting deponent. I therefore, in the circumstances, hold that the 1st and 2nd Respondents by not reacting to the issue in question, have conceded the issue as formulated and argued by the learned counsel for the Appellants.” PER OJO, J.C.A.

WHEN DOES AN AMENDMENT TAKE EFFECT

The law is settled that an amendment duly made takes effect from the date the original process was filed. An Amended Writ of Summons therefore dates back to the date of the original one and consequently, the action will continue as if the amendment was inserted from the beginning. See ADEWUMI & ANOR VS. ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF EKITI STATE (2002) 2 NWLR (PT. 751)474; REGISTERED TRUSTEES OF THE AIRLINE OPERATORS OF NIGERIA VS. NIGERIAN AIRSPACE MANAGEMENT AGENCY (2014) 8 NWLR (PT. 1408) 1; OKONKWO VS. OKONKWO (1998) 10 NWLR (PT. 571) 554.
The same goes for the pleadings. When pleadings are amended, what stood before the amendment is no longer material for the purposes of determining the controversy between the parties. In the case of AGBAHOMOVO & ORS VS. EDUYEGBE & ORS (1999) 3 NWLR (PT. 594)170, IGUH JSC held as follows:
“There can be no doubt that once pleadings are duly amended by an order of Court, what stood before the amendment is no longer material before the Court and no longer defines the issues to be tried before the Court. See Warner v Sampson (1959) 1 Q.B. 297. This, however, is as far as this proposition of law goes. It does not and has not laid down any such principle that an original pleading which has been duly amended by an order of Court automatically ceases to exist for all purposes and must be deemed to have been expunged or struck out of the proceedings. The clear principle of law established is that such original pleading which has been duly amended is no longer material before the Court in the sense that it no longer determines or defines the live issues to be tried before the Court, not that it no longer exists. It does certainly exist and is before the Court. It is however totally immaterial in the determination of the issues to be tried in the proceedings. It thus cannot be considered as the basis of one’s case in any action. Nor may a Court of law rely on any such original pleading which has been duly amended as the basis for its Judgment in the suit. The issues to be tried will depend on the state of the final or amended pleadings. See SALAMI VS. OKE (1987) 4 NWLR (PT. 63) 1 AT 9 AND 12 AND AGBAISI AND OTHER VS. EBIKOREFE AND OTHERS (1997) 4 NWLR (Pt. 502)630 at 647-649.” PER OJO, J.C.A.

FOLASADE AYODEJI OJO, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): This is an appeal against the judgment of the High Court of Justice, Ogun State, Aiyetoro Judicial Division, holden at Ilaro delivered on 30th of June, 2010 in Suit No. HCT/99/1992.

By a Writ of Summons issued on the 6th of July, 1992, the original Respondent as Plaintiff at the lower Court instituted an action against the original Appellant as 1st Defendant. The Originating Processes in that Suit i.e. the Writ of Summons and Statement of Claim were subsequently amended.

By the Amended Writ of Summons and Statement of Claim filed on 20th of June, 2000, the Plaintiff now the 1st and 2nd Respondents in this appeal claimed against the Appellants as Defendants jointly and severally as follows:
(a) N10,000,000.00 (Ten Million Naira) being damages for the trespass committed by the defendants jointly and severally on the plaintiffs’ land situate, lying and being along Ilogbo Road in Ado-Odo/Ota (formerly Ifo/Ota) Local Government Area of Ogun State covered by Certificate of Occupancy with registration number OG754965 of 21st day of August, 1980.
(b) An Order of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants, their servants, agents and/or privies from committing further acts of trespass on the said piece of land belonging to the Plaintiff.

By an Amended Statement of Defence and Counterclaim filed on 22nd of February, 2005, the Appellant as 1st Defendant Counter claimed as follows:
“(1) A DECLARATION that the Defendants the Adalemo family are the person deemed to and/or the person entitled to the Statutory Right of Occupancy of the piece or parcel of land situate, lying and being at Ilogbo Road, Otta, Ogun State as shown in the Survey Plan which will be filed in the Suit
(2) N500,000.00 (FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND NAIRA ONLY) being special and general damages for trespass and unlawful and willful destruction of the Defendants’ farmland, as shown on the Survey Plan.
(3) N100,000.00 (ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND NAIRA ONLY) being Surveyor’s fees for the said Composite Plan and sundry expenses arising from this Suit.
(4) AN ORDER OF PERPETUAL INJUNCTION restraining the Plaintiff by himself, servants, agents and/or any person by whatever name called from doing anything whatsoever on the areas of land outside the 110 acres conveyed to the Plaintiff predecessors-in-title.”

The case went on to trial. At the end of the day, the trial judge in a considered judgment delivered on the 30th June, 2010 granted the claim of the Respondent and dismissed the Counter claim of the Appellants.

The trial judge at page 114 of the record held as follows:
“Accordingly, the claim of the Plaintiff succeeds and it is hereby ordered as follows:
1. The sum of N500,000. (Five Hundred Thousand Naira) is hereby awarded against the defendants jointly and severally being damages for trespass committed by the Defendants on the Plaintiff’s land situate, lying and being along Ilogbo Road in Ado-Ota (formerly Ifo/Ota) Local Government Area of Ogun State covered by Certificate of Occupancy with registration number OG 754965 of 21st of August, 1980.
2. An Order of perpetual injunction is hereby granted, restraining the Defendants, their servants, agents and/or privies from committing further acts of trespass on the said piece of land belonging to the Plaintiff.”

He also dismissed the Counter Claim of the Appellants. Dissatisfied with the Judgment, the Appellants filed a Notice of Appeal on the 13th of July, 2010 which notice was subsequently amended. The extant Notice of Appeal is the Further Amended Notice of Appeal filed on 19th of December, 2018. Parties filed and exchanged their Briefs of Argument. The Briefs of Argument of the parties were amended. This appeal was argued on the Further Amended Briefs. The Further Amended Appellants’ Brief of Argument was filed on the 22nd of March, 2019. The Further Amended Respondents’ Brief of Argument was filed on 7th January, 2019 while the Amended Appellants’ Reply Brief was filed on 9th January, 2019. At the hearing of this appeal on the 27th of January, 2020 parties adopted and relied on their respective Briefs of Argument as their oral arguments in this appeal.

Let me at this stage clarify the position of parties in this appeal. The original Plaintiff at the lower Court who is dead was substituted by the 1st and 2nd Respondents while the 1st – 3rd Appellants were substituted for the deceased original 1st Defendant/Appellant. The names of the co-defendants at the lower Court who were the 3rd – 10th Respondents in this appeal were struck out as a result of their demise.

Learned Counsel to the Appellants in the Further Amended Appellants Brief of Argument formulated the following issues for the determination of this appeal:
1. Whether the learned trial Judge had jurisdiction to entertain and give Judgment in favour of the Claimants/Respondents based on their Amended Statement of Claim and Writ of Summons dated 19th June 2000 at pages 14-19 and 20-21 of the Records which derived its validity from the Statement of Claim dated 19th June 2000 that was issued and signed by Deji Sasegbon & Co in breach of the provision of Section 2(1) and 24 of the Legal Practitioners Act, 1975.
2. Whether the lower Court was right in relying solely on contradictory evidence of PW2 which is in compliance with the Court Order made on the 29th of June, 1994 in giving Judgment that the land in dispute falls within the 110 acres sold to the Respondent’s grandfather (Grounds 1 and 2)
3. Whether the lower Court rightly held that the 1st Defendant/Appellant has failed to prove his Counter Claim to show that the land in dispute is outside the 110 acres sold to the Respondent’s Grandfather and awarded the sum of N600,000.00 as damages for trespass and cost respectively against the Appellants. Grounds 3, 4 and 5.

For his part, Learned Counsel to the Respondents formulated two issues for determination on behalf of the Respondent in the Further Amended Respondents Brief of Argument. They are:
1) Whether the learned trial Judge of the Court below Honourable Justice H.O. Solanke properly evaluated and ascribed correct probative value to the evidence of the parties and drew correct inference and conclusion in holding that the Appellants and now struck out 3rd to 10th Respondents trespassed on the land of the Respondents, ordered them to pay paucity N500,000 damages for trespass, granted order of perpetual injunction restraining them from further acts of trespass on Respondents parcel of land located along Ilogbo Road in Ado-Odo Ota and registered as No 94 at page 332 in volume 127 with cost of N100,000. (This issue one covers grounds 1, 2, 4 and 5 of the Further Amended Notice of Appeal dated 19th day of December, 2018)
2) Whether from the totality of the findings and Judgment of the Court below of 30th day of June, 2010 the learned trial Judge of the Court below Honourable Justice H.O. Solanke was right and correct to dismiss the counterclaim of the Appellants and then now struck out 3rd to 10th Respondents in limine. (This issue two covers grounds three of the Further Amended Notice of Appeal dated 19th day of December, 2018)

The Appellants Counsel in the Amended Appellants Reply Brief formulated two issues for determination.
Order 19 Rule 5(1) of the Court of Appeal Rules 2016 which provides for the filing of Appellants Reply Brief read thus:
“5(i) The Appellant may also, if necessary within fourteen days of the service on him of the Respondent’s Brief, file and serve or cause to be served on the Respondent a reply brief which shall deal with all new points arising from the Respondent’s Brief.”
It is very clear from the above provision that a reply brief is to respond to new points raised in a Respondent’s Brief of Argument. Where no new point is raised in a Respondent’s Brief of Argument, a Reply Brief is unnecessary. See DADA VS. DOSUNMU (2006) 18 NWLR (PT. 1010) 134; LONGE VS. FIRST BANK (NIG) PLC (2010) 6 NWLR (PT. 1189)1; KOLO VS. LAWAN (2018) 13 NWLR (PT. 1637) 495; OSUJI VS. EKEOCHA (2009) 16 NWLR (PT. 1166)81.
The Further Amended Appellants’ Reply Brief of Argument did not answer any new point raised in the Further Amended Respondents’ Brief of Argument. It is an expansion of arguments contained in the Further Amended Appellant’s Brief. That is not the essence of a Reply Brief. The Reply Brief filed on behalf of the Appellant is discountenanced by me.

Upon a consideration of the issues formulated by parties I find the issues formulated by the Appellants apt for the determination of this appeal. I shall adopt them with some slight modification as the issues for the determination in this appeal. They are:
1. Whether the Amended Writ of Summons and Statement of Claim before the lower Court are not incompetent having been signed by Deji Sasegbon & Co.
2. Whether from the totality of the evidence before it, the lower Court was right when it granted the reliefs sought by the Respondents.
3. Whether the lower Court was right to have dismissed the Counter-Claim of the Appellants.

ISSUE 1
Whether the Amended Writ of Summons and Statement of Claim before the lower Court are not incompetent having been signed by Deji Sasegbon & Co.

Relying on the cases of MISCELLANEOUS OFFENCES TRIBUNAL & ANOR. VS. OKOROAFOR & ANOR (2001) 18 NWLR (PT. 745) 295 AT 326-327, PARAS H-A, Learned Counsel to the Appellants emphasised the importance of jurisdiction in adjudication and submitted that the lower Court was not imbued with the requisite jurisdiction to determine the case at hand. This he said is because the Amended Writ of Summons and Statement of Claim were signed in contravention of the provisions of Section 2(1) and 24 of the Legal Practitioners Act, 1975. He submitted the processes were signed by Deji Sasegbon & Co. and therefore incompetent. He relied on the cases of SLB CONSORTIUM LTD VS. NNPC (2011) 9 NWLR (PT. 1252) 329, PARAS. D-F; OKAFOR VS. NWEKE (2007) 1 NWLR (PT. 1043)521 AT 534; ALAWIYE VS. OGUNSANYA (2013) 5 NWLR AND HAMZAT VS. SANNI (2015) 5 NWLR (PT. 1453). He urged us to resolve this issue in favour of the Appellant and proceed to set aside the judgment of the lower Court given without jurisdiction for the reason of the incompetence of the Originating Processes.

I note that the issue under consideration is not derived from any of the grounds of appeal in the Amended Notice of Appeal. The law is settled that any issue which does not have its root in any of the grounds of appeal is incompetent and would be discountenanced by an Appellate Court. See EMMANUEL VS. UMANA & ORS (2016) 2 SC (PT. 1) PG. 1; DAGACI OF DERE & ORS VS. DAGACI OF EBWA & ORS (2006) 7 NWLR (PT. 979)382; AJIBOYE VS. ISHOLA (2006) 13 NWLR (PT. 998) 628 AND UGBOAJA VS AKINTOYE-SOWEMIMO & ORS (2008) 16 NWLR (PT. 1113)278.
The Further Amended Notice of Appeal contains six Grounds of Appeal. A cursory look at all the grounds reveal that the issue of the competence of the originating processes does not emanate from any of the grounds. This issue however goes to the jurisdiction of the lower Court to entertain the action and affects its competence. The law is trite that an objection to the exercise of the jurisdiction of a Court can be raised at any stage of the proceedings. It is very fundamental to adjudication to the extent that it can be raised suo motu by the Court and a decision taken thereon without calling on parties to address it. The issue of jurisdiction may even be raised for the first time on appeal with or without leave of the Appellate Court. See OLOBA VS. AKEREJA (1988) 3 NWLR (PT. 84)508; OLUTOLA VS. UNIVERSITY OF ILORIN (2004) 18 NWLR (PT. 905) 416; ALIMS (NIG) LTD VS. UNITED BANK FOR AFRICA (2013) 6 NWLR (PT. 1351)613. It follows therefore that this issue raised by the Appellant in his Amended Appellant’s Brief as Issue Nos. 1 is valid notwithstanding the fact that it is not distilled from any of the grounds of appeal. I shall therefore proceed to deal with it.

The transcript record of proceedings at the lower Court reveal that the suit was commenced vide a Writ of Summons filed on the 6th of July 1992. The originating processes were however amended pursuant to an order of Court granted on the 6th of June 2000. The Amended Writ of Summons and Amended Statement of Claim were filed on the 20th of June 2000. The Amended Processes are contained at pages 20 – 24 of the record. The law is settled that an amendment duly made takes effect from the date the original process was filed. An Amended Writ of Summons therefore dates back to the date of the original one and consequently, the action will continue as if the amendment was inserted from the beginning. See ADEWUMI & ANOR VS. ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF EKITI STATE (2002) 2 NWLR (PT. 751)474; REGISTERED TRUSTEES OF THE AIRLINE OPERATORS OF NIGERIA VS. NIGERIAN AIRSPACE MANAGEMENT AGENCY (2014) 8 NWLR (PT. 1408) 1; OKONKWO VS. OKONKWO (1998) 10 NWLR (PT. 571) 554.
The same goes for the pleadings. When pleadings are amended, what stood before the amendment is no longer material for the purposes of determining the controversy between the parties. In the case of AGBAHOMOVO & ORS VS. EDUYEGBE & ORS (1999) 3 NWLR (PT. 594)170, IGUH JSC held as follows:
“There can be no doubt that once pleadings are duly amended by an order of Court, what stood before the amendment is no longer material before the Court and no longer defines the issues to be tried before the Court. See Warner v Sampson (1959) 1 Q.B. 297. This, however, is as far as this proposition of law goes. It does not and has not laid down any such principle that an original pleading which has been duly amended by an order of Court automatically ceases to exist for all purposes and must be deemed to have been expunged or struck out of the proceedings. The clear principle of law established is that such original pleading which has been duly amended is no longer material before the Court in the sense that it no longer determines or defines the live issues to be tried before the Court, not that it no longer exists. It does certainly exist and is before the Court. It is however totally immaterial in the determination of the issues to be tried in the proceedings. It thus cannot be considered as the basis of one’s case in any action. Nor may a Court of law rely on any such original pleading which has been duly amended as the basis for its Judgment in the suit. The issues to be tried will depend on the state of the final or amended pleadings. See SALAMI VS. OKE (1987) 4 NWLR (PT. 63) 1 AT 9 AND 12 AND AGBAISI AND OTHER VS. EBIKOREFE AND OTHERS (1997) 4 NWLR (Pt. 502)630 at 647-649.”
The Amended Writ of Summons filed on 20th of June, 2000 is deemed in law to date back to the 6th of July, 1992 the date the original Writ of Summons was filed while the Amended Statement of Claim goes back to the date the original Statement of Claim was filed. Issues to be tried and which indeed were tried by the lower Court were based on the Amended processes.

The Amended Writ of Summons contained at pages 20-21 of the Record was signed by Deji Sasegbon & Co. The Amended Statement of Claim at pages 22-24 of the Record was also signed in the name of Deji Sasegbon & Co. The complaint of the Appellant is that the two amended processes are incompetent as they offend the provisions of Section 2(1) and 24 of the Legal Practitioners Act.
In the recent decision of the Supreme Court in the case of OKPE VS. FAN MILK PLC & ANOR. (2017) 2 NWLR (PT. 1549)282, Muhammad JSC held as follows:
“In SLB CONSORTIUM VS. NNPC (supra) this Court made it clear:
“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 the counsel clearly written;
c) Thirdly, who counsel represents;
d) Fourthly, name and address of legal firm.”
It follows therefore that all Court processes shall be signed by a legal practitioner registered to practice as such. Section 2(1) and 24 of the Legal Practitioners Act are very relevant on this point. They provide as follows:
Section 2(1) (Supra)
“Subject to the provisions of this Act, a person shall be entitled to practice as a Barrister and Solicitor if and only his name is on the roll.”
Section 24 (Supra)
“A person entitled in accordance with the provisions of this Act to practice of Barrister or as a Barrister and Solicitor, either generally or for the purpose of any particular office proceedings.”
A law firm is not a legal practitioner under the provisions of the Legal Practitioners Act and as such cannot validly endorse a Court process. A Court process signed by a person whose name is not on the Roll of Practitioners in the Supreme Court is fundamentally and incurably defective. Such process is incompetent and liable to be struck out. See OKAFOR VS. NWEKE (2007) 10 NWLR (PT. 1043) 531; S.L.B. CONSORTIUM LTD VS. NNPC (2011) 9 NWLR (PT. 1252)317 and OKWUOSA VS. GOMWALK & ORS (2017) 9 NWLR (PT. 1570) 259.
The Amended Writ of Summons and Amended Statement of Claim which are the Originating Processes in the Suit the subject of this appeal were signed by a law firm.They are incompetent and liable to be struck out.
Where an action is commenced with a fundamentally defective process, such is not initiated by due process of law and thus incompetent. See MADUKOLU VS. NKEMDILIM (1962) 2 SCNLR 341. An action not commenced by due process of law is void ab initio and bound to collapse. It is trite that you cannot build something on nothing and expect it to stand.
In view of all the above, I have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that Suit Nos. HCT/99/1992, the foundation of the instant appeal was not initiated at the lower Court by due process of law. The Originating Processes are incompetent. The entire proceedings including the judgment of the lower Court were conducted without jurisdiction and I so hold. In ODU’A INVESTMENT CO. LTD VS. TALABI (1997) 10 NWLR (PT. 523)1, Ogundare, JSC held as follows:
“All the authorities are agreed that where an act is void, it is in law a nullity. It is not only bad, but incurably bad. Any non-compliance or defect that goes to the competence or jurisdiction of a Court is fatal; it renders the proceedings a nullity “however well conducted and decided: the defect is extrinsic to the adjudication.” Per Bairamian, FJ (as he then was) in MADUKOLU & ORS VS. NKEMDILIM (1962) 2 SCNLR 341; (1962) 1 ALL NLR 587 AT 590. See also MACFOY VS. UAC (1962) AC 152 AT 160 PC. When an act is void, waiver does not come in for consideration as the parties cannot consent or waive such irregularity. See: WESTMINSTER BANK LTD VS. EDWARDS (1942) AC 529 AT 536; (1942) 1 ALL ER 470 AT 474 where Lord Wright observed:
“Now it is clear that a Court is not only entitled to put an end to proceeding if at any stage and by any means it becomes manifest that they are incompetent. It can do so on its own initiative, even though the parties have consented to the irregularity because, as WILLES, J., said in London Corpn. V. Cox, in the course of giving the answers of Judges to this house, mere acquiescence does not give jurisdiction.”
The Appellant filed a Counterclaim at the lower Court. It is trite that a Counterclaim is a cross action independent of the substantive action before the Court of trial. The Statement of Defence and Counterclaim of the Appellant is at pages 6 – 13 of the record. It is evident on the face of the process at page 8 of the record that it was signed by Milton Paul Ohwovoriole SAN & Co. The process was later amended. The Amended Statement of Defence and Counterclaim filed on 22nd February, 2005 was signed by one M. O. Jeje (Miss). See pages 25 to 30 of the record. The law is that a fundamentally defective Court process cannot be cured by an amendment. Such a process is non-existent in the eyes of the law. The Amended Statement of Defence and Counterclaim of the Appellant has nothing to stand on.
The Counterclaim of the Appellant therefore suffers the same fate as the original action filed by the Respondent and I so hold. The proceedings of the Counterclaim and the judgment dismissing same are all a nullity.

The judgment of the lower Court in Suit Nos. HCT/99/192 delivered on 30th June, 2010 was given without jurisdiction and it is accordingly set aside. This appeal is incompetent and it is accordingly struck out. All other issues formulated for determination in this appeal have become spent. Whichever way one looks at it the judgment of the lower Court cannot stand. A consideration of all other issues formulated are therefore unnecessary.
The final result is that this Appeal is struck out.

HARUNA SIMON TSAMMANI, J.C.A.: The issue of an originating process such as a writ of summons or statement of claim signed by a Law Firm has received the attention ot the Supreme Court and indeed this Court in a plethora of cases. The law now has crystallized since the cases of Okafor v. Nweke (2007) 10 NWLR (pt.1043) 521 and FBN v. Maiwada (2013) 5 NWLR (pt.1348) 483, to the effect that, any Court process purporting to have been signed by a legal practitioner but signed in the name of a Law Firm, is incompetent, null and void. Such a void process cannot be given life by way of an amendment. Consequently, any proceeding conducted and judgment given on such a void process will be a nullity and liable to be set aside. See Akanni Fadina & Ors v. Nureni Ogunremi & Ors (2017) LPELR — 42771 (CA); Ogundele v. Agiri & Ors (2009) 12 S.C. (pt.1) 133 and Commissioner for Works and Transport, Adamawa State v. Yakubu (2013) 6 NWLR (pt. 1351) 481.
I therefore agree with my learned brother that the Amended Writ of Summons and Amended Statement of claim upon which the proceedings were conducted and judgment given having been signed in the name of a Law Firm, are incompetent and void; and liable to be struck out. The Statement of Defence and Counter-Claim is incompetent and the subsequent amendment thereof is of no moment. This is because, a void process cannot be amended since you cannot premise something on nothing and expect a tangible result. On the Issue, this appeal succeeds and is hereby allowed. Accordingly the Amended Writ of Summons, Amended Statement of Defence and the Statement of Defence; and Counter-Claim are hereby struck out. The judgment of the trial Court premised on those null processes is hereby set aside.

NONYEREM OKORONKWO J.C.A.: The foundations on which the cases in this appeal are built are incurably defective in the sense that the originating summons were signed by law firms who have no competence to sign originating processes. The law on the subject has been restated over and over again as to become hackneyed since Okafor vs. Nweke (2007) 10 NWLR (pt.1043) 531.
In effect, such processes end up as nullity and everything erected thereupon collapse.
I agree with the lead judgment of Folasade Ayodeji Ojo on the point.

Appearances:

O.O. EJEWENTOTO ESQ For Appellant(s)

Absent For Respondent(s)