Judiciary-Poetry-Logo
JPoetry

PROCESS SIGNED BY A FIRM OF LEGAL PRACTITIONERS IS NOT VALID IN LAW

Reach more audience. Place advert here.

Dictum

The said section 573(1) of Companies and Allied Matters Act Provides as follows:- ‘Every individual firm or corporation having a place of business in Nigeria and carrying on business under a business name shall be registered in the manner provided in this part of this Act The above is not an authority that can be relied upon to uphold the view that a process signed and filed by a firm of legal practitioners which has no live is valid in law. The general provision of the law as in section 573(1) of Companies and Allied Matters Act is subject to the specific provisions of section 2(1) and 24 of the Legal Practitioners Act. See: FMBN v. Olloh (2002) 4 SC (Pt. 11) 177 at 122-123; Kraps Thompson Org.v. NIPSS (2004) 5 SC (Pt.1) 16 at 20-21.

— J.A. Fabiyi, JSC. FBN v. Maiwada (2012) – SC.269/2005

Was this dictum helpful?

SHARE ON

COURT CANNOT QUESTION COUNSEL ON INSTRUCTION TO ACT FOR CLIENT

Again, a Court lacks jurisdiction to look into whether or not a counsel has instruction or briefing of his client to appear in Court. See State V Mathew (2018) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1625) 399, 412. It is only the party that is being represented by counsel that can question the representation.

– Ekanem JCA. C.O.P. v. Doolor (2020) – CA/MK/182/2017

Was this dictum helpful?

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?

THE RATIONALE FOR LAWYER-CLIENT PRIVILEGE

The general principle on which the above statutory provision is grounded is as stated by Holden J in the case of Iris Winifred Horn v. Robert Rickard (1963) NLR 67 at 68 or (1963) 2 All NLR 40 at 41 as follows: “Every client is entitled to feel safe when making disclosures to his solicitor or counsel, and there are cases establishing firmly that counsel cannot be called to give any evidence which would infringe the client’s privilege of secrecy.”

Was this dictum helpful?

LEGAL PRACTITIONERS ARE TO KEEP ABREAST WITH THE PRONOUNCEMENTS OF THE SUPREME COURT

The Supreme Court had re-emphasized the binding effect of its judgments on the lower courts in the case of ODEDO v PDP & ORS (2015) LPELR-24738(SC), where Kekere-Ekun, JSC stated at page 65, paras. B – E, as follows: “The Supreme Court is the highest court in the land. By virtue of Section 235 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 its decisions are final. In other words, a decision of the Apex Court settles the position of the law in respect of a particular issue and becomes a binding precedent for all other courts of record in Nigeria. Legal practitioners have a responsibility to keep abreast of the pronouncements of the Court and advise their clients accordingly. It is wrong to ignore decisions of this Court and seek to perpetuate a position that has already been pronounced upon. This is one of the causes of congestion in our courts and must be discouraged.”

Was this dictum helpful?

DUTY THE ADVOCATE OWES THE COURT IS SUPERIOR

While the point is conceded that an advocate should be sensitive and loyal to his client’s case, such sensitivity and loyalty should not exceed required boundaries, particularly the duty the advocate owes the court to present the law correctly, even if it is against his client. – Niki Tobi JSC. Okonkwo v. Cooperative Bank (2003)

Was this dictum helpful?

VARIANCE IN SIGNATURE IS A MERE IRREGULARITY EXCEPT

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?

Load More
No more related dictum to show.

Click the icons to like, follow, and join JPoetry

Facebook Twitter Whatsapp Telegram

External link(s)

BOOK: First 2-years as a Law Student: Experiences and Lessons.