STOP SEEING INTRUSIVE ADS, & HAVE PREMIUM FEATURES? Stop seeing intrusive ads and have a smoother reading experience, once you sign up on Judicial Poetry. Sign up now!

TRIAL JUDGE SHOULD NOT RELY ON ORIGINAL STATEMENT OF DEFENCE WHEN THERE IS AN AMENDMENT

Reach more audience. Place advert here.

Madam Salami and others v. Oke (1987) 4 NWLR (Pt.63) 1. Both counsel relied on this case. In this case, the Supreme Court held that there is nothing fundamentally wrong with a trial Judge merely referring to an original Statement of Defence. However, there is everything wrong with the trial Judge relying on original Statement of Defence to arrive at the live issues in a case where there exists an Amended Statement of Defence. That was the lead judgment of Kawu, J.S.C. In my view, if an amendment relates to the real question in controversy, a trial Judge has no jurisdiction to ignore it and fall back on the original pleadings which are contrary to the amended pleadings. The original pleadings have been overtaken by events and should be so treated. But I see nothing wrong in a trial Judge making reference to original pleadings in the course of his judgment. What should guide an appellate court is whether from the totality of the judgment of the learned trial Judge, he was influenced by the affidavits in previous interlocutory proceedings which are not relevant in arriving at findings and final decisions.

— Tobi, JCA. Abraham v Olorunfunmi (1990) – CA/L/83/89

Was this dictum helpful?

SHARE ON

processes

IF IT CANNOT BE SAID WHO SIGNED A PROCESS, THE PROCESS IS INCURABLY BAD

RHODES-VIVOUR, JSC in SLB CONSORTIUM v NNPC (2011) 9 NWLR (PT. 1252) P. 317 opined that: “Once it cannot be said who signed a process, it is incurably bad and rules of Court that seem to provide a remedy are of no use as a rule cannot override the law (i.e the Legal Practitioners Act)”

Was this dictum helpful?

ONLY LEGAL PRACTITIONER WITH NAME ON THE ROLL SHOULD SIGN COURT PROCESS

The purpose of Sections 2(1) and 24 of the Legal Practitioners Act, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004, is to ensure that only a Legal Practitioner whose name is on the roll of the Supreme Court should sign Court processes. It is to ensure responsibility and accountability on the part of a legal practitioner who signs a Court process. It is to ensure that fake lawyers do not invade the profession … The literal construction of the Law is that Legal Practitioners who are animate personalities should sign Court processes and not a firm of Legal Practitioners which is inanimate and cannot be found in the roll of this Court.

– Bage, JSC. GTB v. Innoson (2017) – SC.694/2014(R)

Was this dictum helpful?

HOW PROCESSES FILED IN COURT MAY BE SIGNED

In SLB Consortium Ltd v NNPC (2011) 4 SC (Pt.1) p.86, I explained how processes filed in Court are to be signed. I said: First, the signature of counsel, which may be any contraption. Secondly, the name of counsel clearly written. Thirdly, who counsel represents. Fourthly, name and address of legal Firm. It is clear from the facts above that the Statement of Claim was signed, but there was no name of counsel. So the process is irregular.

Was this dictum helpful?

COURT PROCESS IS TO BE FILED AS FOLLOWS

This position is further reinforced by the case of; Daniel Ihibe Omede v Umion Bank of Nigeria Plc. (2013) LPELR-22793(CA) where Abdullahi JCA held as follows; ‘’All processes filed in Court are to be signed as follows: a) The signature of counsel, which may be any contraption, b) name of the counsel clearly written, c) the party counsel represents, d) name and address of law firm.”

Was this dictum helpful?

STATEMENT OF CLAIM WHICH HAS BEEN AMENDED DOES NOT CEASE TO EXIST, BUT CANNOT DETERMINE LIVE ISSUES

Again, the Appellants are spot-on that this Court can look at the Respondent’s original pleadings because it is settled law that a statement of claim or defence, which has been duly amended, does not cease to exist: it still forms part of the proceedings and a Court cannot close its eyes to it -see Salami V. Oke (1987) 4 NWLR (Pt. 63)150, Agbaisi V. Ebikorefe (1997) 4 NWLR (Pt. 502) 630 SC, A.S.E.S.A. V. Ekwenem (2009)13 NWLR (Pt. 1158) 370 at 436 SC. But this does not mean that the original pleadings can be the basis of a Party’s case nor may a Court rely on it for its Judgment. It is just that the original pleadings that was amended “no longer determines or defines the live issues to be tried before the Court; not that it no longer exists” see Agbahomovo V. Eduyegbe (1999)3 NWLR (Pt. 594)170 SC. Thus, such original pleadings cannot be deemed to have been expunged or struck out. It certainly exists.

— A.A. Augie, JSC. Berger v Toki Rainbow (2019) – SC.332/2009

Was this dictum helpful?

A LEGAL PROCESS MUST BE SIGNED BY EITHER THE LEGAL PRACTITIONER OR LITIGANT

It is trite that it is the seal or signature, of the author on a document that authenticates the document. A legal document or process of Court must be settled or signed by either the legal practitioner of the choice of the litigant or the litigant himself. The disputed processes were purportedly settled or signed by a legal practitioner, whose identity is unknown. Where ex facie a Court process it is uncertain if the process was signed by the litigant or the legal practitioner representing him, the process is incompetent. Court processes must either be signed by the litigant himself or by the legal practitioner retained by him. A Court process that purports to be settled by a legal practitioner must, as a requirement of statute, have not only the signature of the legal practitioner but also his name clearly shown and indicating that the signature is his. The decision of this Court in SLB CONSTRUCTION v. NNPC (2011) 9 NWLR (Pt.1252) 317 at 336 -337 and many others on Court processes prepared and filed by a legal practitioner clearly demonstrate that for the signature thereon appended to be valid, it must be traceable to a legal practitioner. The process must have the signature or mark of the legal practitioner either against his name, or over and above his name.

– Ejembi, JSC. GTB v. Innoson (2017) – SC.694/2014(R)

Was this dictum helpful?

No more related dictum to show.