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!

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

Reach more audience. Place advert here.

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?

SHARE ON

processes, signature

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?

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?

PROCESS TO BE EXHIBITED ALONGSIDE APPLICATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME

Besides the preliminary objection, the defendant did not file any other defence process within the time allowed it by the Court. The application by the defendant for leave to extend this time was rejected by the Court since copies of the defence processes were not exhibited alongside the application for extension of time. This meant that the defendant had no defence process in this suit.

— B.B. Kanyip, J. FG v. ASUU (2023) – NICN/ABJ/270/2022

Was this dictum helpful?

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

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?

NO NEED TO MARK NAME OF LEGAL PRACTITIONER IF WHO SIGNED THE PROCESS IS LEGIBLE

Also, Kekere-Ekun JSC went further on this issue in Williams v Adold/Stamm Int’l (Nig.) Ltd. (2017) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1560) Pg. 1 at 19-20, where his Lordship held that; “A process prepared and filed by a legal practitioner must be signed by the legal practitioner, and it is sufficient signature if the legal practitioner simply writes his own name over and above the name of his firm where he carries out his practice. The grouse of the respondents appeared to be that there was no mark beside either of the two names to identify which of them signed the process however the name Ladi Williams, though handwritten, was very clear and legible. The court was satisfied that there was no doubt as to who signed the process and that he is a legal practitioner whose name is on the roll. The omission to place a tick beside the name of Chief Ladi Rotimi Williams SAN did not mislead the respondents or the court as to who signed the process and such omission cannot invalidate it.”

Was this dictum helpful?

VARIANCE IN SIGNATURE IS A MERE IRREGULARITY EXCEPT

S.C.E.S. Ltd. v. Umaru Adamu Ent. Ltd. (2026) 10 NWLR (Pt. 2049) 291 AT 317, C–F per Uwa JSC: ‘The appellant contended that the signature of O. I. Olorundare, SAN on the amended statement of claim is at variance with his other signatures on the processes before this court or a signature of a person “not known to law.” This is a grave submission to make against the learned senior counsel and it must be proved on a strict balance of probabilities. The appellant merely presented a visual comparison of signatures. However, human signatures are not static; they may vary due to a multitude of factors. A slight tremor the pen used, the surface written on, or the speed of signing can all produce a variation. In the absence of an expert hand writing analysis or an admission from Mr. Olorundare, SAN himself, a mere visual discrepancy in the strokes of a signature is insufficient to declare a process a nullity or to impugn the professional standing of the learned senior counsel involved. The name O. I. Olorundare, SAN is clearly printed on the document, and the signature, while appearing hasty or different, is clearly an attempt by a human hand to inscribe that name. This is therefore not a case of a document signed by a stranger. It is a case of a document signed by the named learned senior counsel, albeit with a signature that varies from his usual style. This is a patent irregularity, not a fundamental nullity.’

Was this dictum helpful?

No more related dictum to show.