LawCare Nigeria

Nigeria Legal Information & Law Reports

YAMAH v. JUDE-JONES (2021)

 YAMAH v. JUDE-JONES

(2021)LCN/15901(CA)

In The Court Of Appeal

(LAGOS JUDICIAL DIVISION)

On Wednesday, December 15, 2021

CA/LAG/CV/431/19

Before Our Lordships:

Obietonbara Owupele Daniel-Kalio Justice of the Court of Appeal

Onyekachi Aja Otisi Justice of the Court of Appeal

Muhammad Ibrahim Sirajo Justice of the Court of Appeal

 

Between

MS TEKLA MARY YAMAH APPELANT(S)

And

MRS. ANGELA JUDE-JONES RESPONDENT(S)

 

  RATIO:

 THE INCOMPETENCY OF A LAW FIRM SIGNING A PROCESS

 Now the position of the law as regarding a law firm signing a process, more so an Originating Process, is now settled. The locus classicus is the case of OKAFOR & ORS V. NWEKE & ORS (2007) LPELR-2412 P. 11-12 where the Supreme Court per Onnoghen, JSC (as he then was) held that: “Since both Counsel agree that J.H.C OKOLO SAN & CO. is not a Legal Practitioner recognized by the law, it follows that the said J.H.C OKOLO & CO. cannot legally sign and/or file any process in the Courts and as such the motion on notice filed on 19th December, 2005, notice of cross-appeal and the applicants brief of argument in support of the said motion all signed and issued by the law firm known and called J.H.C OKOLO SAN & Co., are incompetent in law particularly as the said firm of J.H.C OKOLO SAN & CO is not a registered legal practitioner. OBIETONBARA OWUPELE DANIEL-KALIO, J.C.A. 

A LAW FIRM IS NOT A LEGAL PRACTITIONER AUTHORIZED TO FILE COURT PROCESSES

In the case of OKWUOSA V. GOMWALK & ORS (2017) LPELR-41736 29-32, Augie, JSC while stating that the position of the law as it stands is that a legal process signed and issued by a law firm is definitely incompetent and liable to be set aside, took time to cite statements of other Justices of the Supreme Court on the subject in earlier cases. Augie, JSC quoted the following statement made by Rhodes-Vivour,

In the traditional cases where processes, especially originating processes were signed in the name of a law firm, the result has been that the said processes are voi d in that a law firm is not a legal practitioner that is authorized to file Court process within the meaning ascribed in Sections 2(1) and 24 of the Legal Practitioners’ Act. Any person whose name I s not on the roll of Legal Practitioners in Nigeria is not qualified to practice as such. In the instant case on appeal, a different scenario is presented. Apart from the name of the law firm there is also the NBA stamp on which is written the name of counsel, Imolode Lawrence Airujuan with his Supreme Court enrolment number on the plaint taken out from the Magistrate Court. The existence of the NBA Stamp on the plaint makes all the difference between this case and the others that I termed “traditional cases,” with Okafor vs. Nweke (2007) LPELR- 2412 (SC), leading the pack. It is for this reason and the more detailed reasons contained in the lead judgment that I too dismiss this appeal and affirm the judgment of the lower Court. MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM SIRAJO, J.C.A.

OBIETONBARA OWUPELE DANIEL-KALIO, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): The appeal here is against the judgment of the High Court of Lagos State (the lower Court) delivered by I.O. Harrison, J on 25/1/2019.

The facts that led to the matter before the lower Court are fairly simple and straightforward. It was a matter that the Respondent began at the Magistrate Court with a Plaint/Claim signed by Lawrence Imolede & Co and Igbinovia & Co. Affixed to the Plaint/Claim is a Nigerian Bar Asso  ciation seal bearing the name Imolede Lawrence Airujuan. The matter was for the possession of a two bedroom apartment with appurtenances, situate at No. 25 Olatunji Oyelola  Street, Idado Lekki, Eti-Osa Local Government Area of Lagos Stare. However, the parties entered into a Terms of Settlement dated 19/12/2016.

By the said Terms of Settlement, the Appellant among other things, agreed to give up peaceful possession of the apartment on or before 31/8/2017. The Magistrate Court entered the Terms of Settlement as the judgment of that Court. Ms Tekla Mary Yanah, the defendant at the Magistrate Court and the Appellant here, who along with her learned Counsel signed the Terms of Settlement, filed a Motion on Notice, in which she sought to have the consent judgment set aside and the execution of same stayed pending the hearing and determination of the said Motion on Notice. The learned Magistrate dismissed the Motion on Notice.

Not satisfied, Ms. Tekla Mary Yamah appealed to the lower Court.

The lower Court in its judgment, narrowed the issue on appeal before it, and rightly so, to whether the signatory on the Plaint/Claim was identifiable as that of a Legal Practitioner whose name is on the roll of Legal Practitioners in Nigeria. The lower Court then considered several decisions on the subject and came to the view that the stamp and seal on the Plaint/Claim confirms that the person who signed the Plaint/Claim is a Legal Practitioner on the roll of Legal Practitioners in Nigeria. The lower Court therefore held that the Plaint/Claim is competent and that the Magistrate had jurisdiction to enter the Terms of Settlement as the consent judgment of his Court. The lower Court dismissed the appeal.

Not satisfied, Ms Tekla Mary Yamah has further appealed to this Court. There are three grounds of appeal. They are:<br< p=”” style=”box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;”></br<>

GROUND ONE
The learned trial judge erred in law and came to a wrong decision when he failed to set aside the judgment/ruling of the Magistrate Court delivered on 20th December, 2017 on the ground that the Plaint/Claim dated 19th September, 2016 was filed by a Legal Practitioner identifiable by the Nigerian Bar Association seal affixed to the Plaint.
GROUND TWO
The lower Court erred in law and came to a wrong decision when it affirmed the judgment/ruling of the Magistrate Court delivered on 20th December, 2017 on the ground that the seal of the Legal Practitioner affixed to the Plaint/Claim dated 19th September, 2016 has cured the defect of signing the Plaint in the name of the law firm.
GROUND THREE
The lower Court erred in law and breached the age long principle of stare decisis when it refused to follow the decisions of the Supreme Court in Okafor v Nweke (2007) 10 NWLR (Pt.1043) 521, First Bank Plc v Maiwada (2013) 5 NWLR (Pt.1348) 444 at 506 and SLB Consortium Ltd v NNPC (2011) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1252) 317 in holding that affixing the NBA seal on the Plaint/Claim dated 19th September, 2016 has cured the fundamental defect of the signing of the originating process in the business names of Lawrence Imolode & Co and Igbinovia & Co.

The above grounds of appeal were accompanied by copious particulars of the error complained of in each ground.

Briefs of Argument were exchanged by the parties. The Appellant filed a Brief of Argument and a Reply Brief of Argument on 29/1/2020 and on 30/9/2020 respectively. The Briefs were settled by Adedayo Adesina, Esq. The Respondent’s Brief was filed on 9/3/2020 and settled by Lawrence Imolode, Esq. All the Briefs were deemed filed and served on 20/1/2021.

The Appellant’s learned Counsel distilled the following lone issue for determination in this appeal, viz:
Whether the seal of a Legal Practitioner affixed to the Plaint dated 19th September, 2016, being an originating process, cured the fundamental defect of signing the originating process in the name of the Law firms of Lawrence Imolode & Co. and Igbinovia & Co.

The Respondent’s Counsel also identified a sole issue for determination but couched it this way:
“Whether the lower Court, in the light and circumstances of the signing of the Originating processes in the name of a law firm, to wit, Lawrence Imolode & Co. was correct or justified in refusing to set aside the Consent judgment having regard to Defendant/Appellant’s waiver; the stamp and seal affixed by the learned Counsel for the Claimant/Respondent and the position of the law.”

Other than giving the issue for the determination a slant more in line with the Respondent’s perspective of the matter on appeal, there is nothing that different in the issues formulated by the parties. I shall therefore proceed to consider the issue as formulated by the Appellant.

The Appellant’s learned Counsel in arguing the sole issue, submitted that although the lower Court agreed that the signing of an Originating Process in the name of a law firm goes to the competence of the process and the process is liable to be set aside, rather than hold that the Plaint signed in the name of a law firm is incompetent in the matter before it, the lower Court went ahead to uphold the Ruling of the Magistrate and dismiss the appeal by giving cognizance to the stamp and seal on the Plaint as that of a person on the roll of legal practitioners. The lower Court, it was submitted, is wrong, the signing of an originating process in the name of a law firm, being a fundamental defect that affects the jurisdiction of the Court. Learned Counsel cited FIRST BANK PLC V. MAIWADA (2013) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1348) 444 at 499, FRN V. DAIRO (2015) 6 NWLR (Pt.1454) 141 at 166-167, HAMZAT V. SANNI (2015) 5 NWLR (Pt.1453) 486 at 506, SLB CONSORTIUM LTD V. NNPC (2011) 9 NWLR (Pt.1252) 317 at 336, BRAITHWAITE V. SKYE BANK PLC (2013) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1346)1 at 18, OKAFOR V. NWEKE (2007) 10 NWLR (Pt.1043) 521 at 533, OKETADE V. ADEWUNMI (2010) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1195) 63 at 74 AND NIGERIAN ARMY V. SAMUEL (2013) 14 NWLR ( Pt.1375) 466 at 483.

It was submitted that the defect is such that cannot be amended, citing MINISTRY OF WORKS AND TRANSPORT ADAMAWA STATE V. YAKUBU (2013) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1351) 481 at 496 and ABE V. SKYE BANK PLC (2015) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1450) 512 at 535.

Learned Counsel submitted further that the signing of a Court process is provided for in Section 2(1) and 24 of the Legal Practitioners Act and that the lower Court was wrong to have held that the affixing of a seal which is a requirement of Rule 10(1) of the Rules of Professional Conduct for Legal Practitioners , 2007 cured the fundamental defect in the Originating Process. Citing the case of YAKI V BAGUDU (2015) 18 NWLR (Pt 1491) 288 at 300-392, learned counsel contended that whereas failure to comply with Rule 10(1) of the Rules of Professional Conduct merely renders a Court process voidable, signing of a Court process in the name of a law firm renders the Court process void. Arguing further, learned Counsel submitted that the Rules of Professional Conduct for Legal Practitioners is a subsidiary legislation and can neither curtail nor override the express provision of the Legal Practitioners Act.

Learned Counsel concluded by submitting that the lower Court failed to adhere to the principle of stare decisis when it refused to follow OKETADE V. ADEWUNMI (supra), NIGERIAN ARMY V. SAMUEL (supra), OKAFOR V. NWEKE (supra), FIRST BANK V. MAIWADA (supra) and SLB CONSORTIUM LTD V. NNPC (supra) which all held that any Court process signed in the name of a law firm is void and legally non-existent. On the nature and importance of the doctrine of stare decisis, learned Counsel cited the case of OSAKUE V. FEDERAL COLLEGE OF EDUCATION(TECHNICAL) ASABA (2010) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1201) 1 at 35.

In his argument in response, the Respondent’s learned Counsel while noting that the Appellant’s learned Counsel referred to a plethora of authorities including the locus classicus OKAFOR V. NWEKE, submitted that the Appellant’s learned Counsel did not take cognizance of the fact that the facts and circumstances of the matter on appeal are not the same as the authorities cited. Learned Counsel referred in extenso to the ruling of the learned Magistrate in refusing to set aside the consent judgment, and submitted that the reasoning in the ruling is sound and that the decision of the learned Magistrate was rightly upheld by the lower Court. It was submitted that the doctrine of stare decisis which the Appellant’s learned Counsel urged should be adhered to, does not preclude a lower Court from distinguishing the case before it from the decision of an appellate Court.

Learned Counsel contended that the Appellant waived her right to complain when she signed the Terms of Settlement that was made the consent judgment of the Magistrate Court. He referred to the concept of waiver as stated in the case of ARIORI V. ELEMO (1983) 1 SC (REPRINT) 7 at 35 and in the case of SYLVA V. INEC (2016)11 SC 52 at 114.

Respondent’s learned Counsel submitted that there is a clear difference between jurisdiction simpliciter and procedural jurisdiction. While in the former, a Court must uphold a contention that it lacks jurisdiction, in the latter which is where the instant appeal belongs, a Court may refuse an application that it lacks jurisdiction, it was submitted. Learned Counsel referred in extenso to the decision of Eko, JSC in the case of HERITAGE BANK LIMITED V. BENTWORTH FINANCE (NIG) (2018) 1-2 SC (Pt. III) 157 at 171-174. Learned Counsel urged this Court to dismiss the appeal with cost of One Million Naira.

In the Reply Brief of Argument, the Appellant’s learned Counsel submitted that the issue of waiver did not arise from the grounds of appeal and that same cannot be raised by the Respondent. The case of UBN LTD V OSEZUAH (1997)2 NWLR (Pt. 485) 28 at 43 was cited in support. Learned Counsel reiterated arguments on jurisdiction. I will not bother with those arguments as the scope of a Reply Brief is to address all new points arising from the Respondent’s Brief. Now the position of the law as regarding a law firm signing a process, more so an Originating Process, is now settled. The locus classicus is the case of OKAFOR & ORS V. NWEKE & ORS (2007) LPELR-2412 P. 11-12 where the Supreme Court per Onnoghen, JSC (as he then was) held that: “Since both Counsel agree that J.H.C OKOLO SAN & CO. is not a Legal Practitioner recognized by the law, it follows that the said J.H.C OKOLO & CO. cannot legally sign and/or file any process in the Courts and as such the motion on notice filed on 19th December, 2005, notice of cross-appeal and the applicants brief of argument in support of the said motion all signed and issued by the law firm known and called J.H.C OKOLO SAN & Co., are incompetent in law particularly as the said firm of J.H.C OKOLO SAN & CO is not a registered legal practitioner”.
In the case of OKWUOSA V. GOMWALK & ORS (2017) LPELR-41736 29-32, Augie, JSC while stating that the position of the law as it stands is that a legal process signed and issued by a law firm is definitely incompetent and liable to be set aside, took time to cite statements of other Justices of the Supreme Court on the subject in earlier cases. Augie, JSC quoted the following statement made by Rhodes-Vivour, JSC in ALAWIYE V OGUNSANYA (2012) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1348) 570 thus:
“This case is on all fours with SLB CONSORTIUM V. NNPC. In that case, the Originating Summons and the Amended Statement of Claim complained of were signed by “Adewale Adesokan & Co” Since Adewale Adesokan & Co., is not a legal practitioner whose name is on the roll, the originating processes were defective and the appeal arising from the proceedings initiated and conducted without jurisdiction was incompetent. In this matter, the originating processes were signed by “Chief Afe Babalola, SAN & Co.” It is clear that those p rocesses were not signed by a person known to law, the name not being on the roll, and so the originating processes were contrary to Section 2 and 24 of the Legal Practitioners Act. Chief Afe Babalola SAN & Co., is not a legal practitioner known to law, the said originating processes are defective and all proceedings that arose from the said defective processes are nullities. In SLB Consortium v NNPC, I explained how processes filed in Court are to be signed. I said- “All processes in Court are to be signed – (a) 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.”

There is no gainsaying the fact that from the authorities, a process filed in Court, particularly an originating process signed by a law firm, is defective and incompetent and liable to be set aside. I hasten to add however that all the authorities deal with a situation in which the process was signed by a law firm simpliciter. None of them dealt with a case in which there is, quite apart from the process having been signed by a law firm, there is affixed to it, a seal of the Nigerian Bar Association bearing the name of a Legal Practitioner as is the case in the matter on appeal.
The Plaint/Claim at the Magistrate Court as can be seen at page 52 of the Record of Appeal, shows that above LAWRENCE IMOLODE & CO., is a signature. That signature, on close examination, is decipherable as a contraption of the name, IMOLODE LAWRENCE. Under the name of the law firm is typed CLAIMANTS COUNSEL. Under that is typed the address of the law firm: 1st FLOOR, EDO HOUSE, SUITE 102, PLOT 1225 BISHOP OLUWOLE ST, VICTORIA ISLAND. To the left of all of that, is a seal of the Nigerian Bar Association. The name on the seal is IMOLODE LAWRENCE AIRUJUAN with the no. SCN054852. In the judgment of the Supreme Court, per Augie, JSC cited above, the judgment of Rhodes-Vivour JSC in SLB Consortium v NNPC as referenced in that judgment, listed what a process filed in Court must have for it to be accepted as competently signed by a legal practitioner. If I may repeat, the listed things are: (1) the signature of counsel that can be written in any contraption; (2) the name of Counsel clearly written; (3) the party that the Counsel represents; and (4) the name and address of the law firm.
All the above requirements are contained in the Plaint/Claim (the Originating Process) at the Magistrate Court.
​LAWRENCE IMOLODE & Co is not a legal practitioner, and the signature above the name of that law firm ex-facie should lead conclusively that it was signed by a law firm. But there is a but. The said signature which is decipherable as that of IMOLODE LAWRENCE corresponds with the name that is on the seal of the Nigerian Bar Association affixed to the process. That name cannot be anything other than the name of a legal practitioner. Can the Court shut its eyes to that seal? Does the seal count for nothing? Does the seal not confirm that the person whose name it bears is a Legal Practitioner in Nigeria? Is the whole   point of OKAFOR & ORS V NWEKE & ORS and the other cases, not one meant to emphasis the need for only persons called to the bar in Nigeria to practice law in Nigeria must sign Court processes? If that is the purpose of those cases and given the fact that the name of the Legal Practitioner is clearly written in the process (albeit on the seal), I am of the view that the requirements stated by Rhodes-Vivour, JSC in SLB CONSORTIUM V NNPC have been complied with. I am therefore of the considered view that the Originating Process in the Plaint/Claim is not defective and that the authorities cited such as OKAFOR & ORS V NWEKE & ORS etc, are distinguishable from the facts in this case. One must not lose sight of the reason for the insistence in all the authorities that a law firm must not sign Court processes.

The reason as Fabiyi, JSC stated in F.B.N V. MAIWADA (supra), is for due accountability and responsibility on the part of legal practitioners and for the due protection of the legal profession. See also OKWUOSA V GOMWALK & ORS (2017) LPELR-41736 (SC). In the case on appeal here, if there was/is any doubt about whether the Originating Process was signed by a legal practitioner whose name is on the roll of legal practitioners in Nigeria, any such doubt is removed by the Nigerian Bar Association seal which bears the name of IMOLODE LAWRENCE AIRUJUAN which is the name in the decipherable signature on top of LAWRENCE IMOLODE & CO. Rule 10 (1) of the Rules of Professional Conduct for Legal Practitioners, 2007 requires that a lawyer shall not sign or file a legal document unless there is affixed on any such document a seal and a stamp approved by the Nigerian Bar Association. Therefore, the seal of IMOLODE LAWRENCE AIRUJUAN confirms that he is a legal Practitioner on the roll of legal practitioners  in Nigeria and since the decipherable signature in the Plaint/Claim bears that name, it will be difficult to press the argument that the Plaint/Claim was signed by a law firm. Where there is signature above the name of a law firm in a Court process without more, such process is incompetent as a law firm is not a legal practitioner on the roll of legal practitioners in Nigeria and therefore cannot competently sign such a process. However, where a seal of the Nigerian Bar Association that bears the name of a legal practitioner is also affixed to the process and the name on the seal is seen as the name that appears above the name of the law firm as a signature, it should be sufficient to conclude that the process was signed by the person whose name is on the seal of the Nigerian Bar Association. The intention after all in OKAFOR & ORS V NWEKE & ORS etc is not to punish a legal Practitioner for any mistake but simply to ensure that a law firm cannot be allowed to perform the duty of a legal practitioner since a law firm is not a legal practitioner. I am satisfied as I earlier stated, that OKAFOR & ORS v NWEKE & ORS and similar cases are distinguishable from this case. I am therefore further satisfied that there is no reason to disturb the concurrent judgments of the lower Court and the Magistrate Court.
I cannot in concluding, resist to observe that the Appellant in filing her appeals has acted in bad faith. Here is a party who agreed to a Terms of Settlement by signing the Terms of Settlement with her learned Counsel on 19/12/2016. Indeed, before the Magistrate entered the Terms of Settlement as the judgment of the Court, the Magistrate made the following pertinent note as can be seen at page 72 of the Record of Appeal:
“CONSENT JUDGMENT
Claimant Counsel: Parties have entered terms. We want this Honourable Court to enter the said terms dated 19/12/16 as judgment of this Court.
Defense Counsel: That is the position.
Court: Defendant, is the signature yours?
Defendant: Yes, the signature on the terms of settlement is mine.
Court: Terms of settlement dated 19/12 /16 is hereby adopted as judgment of this Court.”

The law frowns at the type of behavior exhibited by the Appellant. From the questions asked by the Magistrate, she was not forced or coerced to enter into the Terms of Settlement. She did so ex mero motu ie out of her own free will. She elected to do so. The maxim: electio semel facta, et placitum testatum, non patitur regressum, meaning election once made, and plea witnessed, suffers not a recall, should apply here. The Appellant rather than honor the Terms of Settlement, went about looking for a loophole to enable her resile from it. It is obvious that she wanted to stay put in the apartment rent-free for as long as the case remains in Court. She wanted to have her cake and eat it too. Sadly, her learned Counsel that also signed the Terms of Settlement, saw nothing wrong in that gambit. The cynicism of it all!

All considered, I find no merit in the appeal. I dismiss it. Cost of N100,000 is awarded in favour of the Respondent.

ONYEKACHI AJA OTISI, J.C.A.: I was privileged to read before now, a copy of the lead judgment of my learned brother, Obietonbara O. Daniel-Kalio, JCA. The issues distilled for determination have been comprehensively resolved. I agree with the reasoning and conclusions therein, which I adopt as mine. I will only make few comments in support.

In Yaki v Bagudu (2015) LPELR-25721(SC), one of the issues for determination was:
“Whether the Court of Appeal was right to hold that failure of a legal document to have affixed to it a stamp/seal as mandated by Rule 10(1) of the Rules of Professional Conduct did not carry with it the consequence of rendering such legal document incompetent.”
The Supreme Court, per Ngwuta, JSC (of blessed  memory) held, pages 6 – 7 of E-Report:
“What is the consequence of a legal document signed and filed in contravention of Rule 10(1) in the Rules? The answer is as provided in Rule 10(3) to the effect that the document so signed or filed shall be deemed not to have been properly signed or filed.” It is my humble view that the legal document so signed and/or filed is not null and void or incompetent like the case of a Court process signed in the name of a corporation or association (even of lawyers). See Okafor v. Nweke (2007) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1043) SC 521 cited by the learned silk for 2nd respondent/cross-appellant. The document, in terms of the rule, is deemed not to have been properly signed or filed, but not incompetent as the 2nd respondent assumed.
It has been signed and filed but not properly so signed and filed for the reason that the condition precedent to its proper signing and filing had not been met. It is akin to a legal document or process filed at the expiration of the time allowed by the rules or extended by the Court.
In such cases, the filing of the process can be regularised by extension of time and a deeming order.”
Onnoghen, JSC (later CJN, now retired), in his concurring opinion further explained, pages 11, 14:
“It must be borne in mind that the provision of the Rules of Professional Conduct, 2007 are no substitute for substantive laws being a subsidiary legislation/enactment…
It should be noted that the qualification to practice law as a legal practitioner is as provided under the Legal Practitioners Act which includes being called to Bar and enrolled at the Supreme Court of Nigeria as a legal practitioner. It is that qualification that entitles a legal practitioner to sign/frank any legal document either for filing in a Court of law in a proceeding or otherwise. See Okafor v. Nweke (2007) 10 NWLR (Pt.1043) 521 etc. The above requirements constitute the substantive law on the issue.
It follows, therefore that the provisions of Rules of Professional Conduct, 2007 is directed at the Legal Practitioner to provide evidence of his qualification to practice law in Nigeria in addition to his name being in the Roll at the Supreme Court of Nigeria. It therefore saves time needed for a search at the Supreme Court to determine the authenticity of the claim of the legal practitioner for being so qualified. The provisions of the rules, I must repeat, is not a substitute for the substantive law on the matter that is why non-compliance thereto renders the document involved/concerned voidable, not void or a nullity. In the circumstance, it is only fair to the client, the legal profession and in the interest of justice that the legal practitioner involved be given opportunity to prove his call to Bar and enrolment at the Supreme Court of Nigeria by affixing his seal to the document involved at any stage in the proceeding including appeal or whenever an objection to the authenticity of the document is raised under the provisions of the said Rules of Professional Conduct, 2007.” (Emphasis mine).
See also Nyesom v. Peterside & Ors (2016) LPELR-40036(SC).
​Guided by these decisions, the conclusion of the lower Court cannot be censured. There was no doubt about the status of the Respondent’s Counsel, Imolede Lawrence Airujuan, as a legal practitioner. The complaint of the Appellant is, therefore, without substance.

This appeal is without merit. I also agree with my learned brother that the Appellant has not acted in good faith. Such conduct must be completely deprecated.

For this reason, and for the fuller reasons in the lead judgment, I also dismiss the appeal and abide by the orders made therein, including the order as to costs.

MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM SIRAJO, J.C.A.: I have had the benefit of reading in draft the lead judgment of my learned brother, OBIETONBARA OWUPELE DANIEL-KALIO, JCA, just delivered. I agree entirely with the reasoning and conclusion reached.

Again, the vexed question of law firm signing process for filing in Court has reared its head in this appeal, albeit in a novel form that requires in-depth judicial reasoning. In the traditional cases where processes, especially originating processes were signed in the name of a law firm, the result has been that the said processes are void in that a law firm is not a legal practitioner that is authorized to file Court process within the meaning ascribed in Sections 2(1) and 24 of the Legal Practitioners’ Act. Any person whose name I s not on the roll of Legal Practitioners in Nigeria is not qualified to practice as such. In the instant case on appeal, a different scenario is presented. Apart from the name of the law firm there is also the NBA stamp on which is written the name of counsel, Imolode Lawrence Airujuan with his Supreme Court enrolment number on the plaint taken out from the Magistrate Court. The existence of the NBA Stamp on the plaint makes all the difference between this case and the others that I termed “traditional cases,” with Okafor vs. Nweke (2007) LPELR- 2412 (SC), leading the pack. It is for this reason and the more detailed reasons contained in the lead judgment that I too dismiss this appeal and affirm the judgment of the lower Court.

I adopt the order made with regard to cost as mine.

Appearances:

Adedayo Adesina For Appellant(s)

Lawrence Imolode For Respondent(s)