(2017) lpelr-42428(ca) - lawpavilionpersonal.comlawpavilionpersonal.com/ipad/books/42428.pdf · as...
TRANSCRIPT
EKUNDAYO & ANOR v. ABERUAGBA
CITATION: (2017) LPELR-42428(CA)
In the Court of AppealIn the Ibadan Judicial Division
Holden at Ibadan
ON MONDAY, 15TH MAY, 2017Suit No: CA/IB/344/2009
Before Their Lordships:
MODUPE FASANMI Justice, Court of AppealCHINWE EUGENIA IYIZOBA Justice, Court of AppealNONYEREM OKORONKWO Justice, Court of Appeal
Between1. MR. EKUNDAYO2. MRS. EKUNDAYO - Appellant(s)
AndALHAJI SALIU ABERUAGBA(For himself and on behalf of the family of LateAyinke Aberuagba)
- Respondent(s)
RATIO DECIDENDI
(201
7) LP
ELR-42
428(
CA)
1. PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - SIGNING OF COURT PROCESS(ES): Effect of acourt process signed in the name of a law firm"...The arguments of the respondents are indeed persuasive but as it is, the law on thepoint now is as espoused by the Supreme Court in Okafor vs. Nweke (2007) A FWLRPt. 308 Page 1016 @ 1026 - 1027.As it stands now and until the Supreme Court in its wisdom decides to vary or overrulethat decision it remains binding its effect being to nullify a writ of summons or otheroriginating process begun by a firm of Legal Practitioners not registered in the roll ofLegal Practitioners as stipulated in the Legal Practitioners Act.In a similar case Chief Fatai Adegbiyi & Ors. vs. Chief Sikiru Balogun & Ors. Appeal No.Ca/I/4/2012 unreported Court of Appeal Ibadan delivered on 22nd January, 2016raising similar issue as in this appeal, I said as follows:-The various High Court Civil Procedure Rules provide copiously for mode ofcommencing civil actions by writ of summons. Upon the requisite endorsements suchwrit of summon shall be signed by the intending Claimant or his Legal Practitioner.In practice, most suits are signed off by a Legal Practitioner and who a LegalPractitioner is, is aptly defined in Section 24 of the Legal Practitioners Act 1975 as aperson entitled in accordance with the provisions of this act to practice as a barristeror as a barrister and solicitor, either generally or for the purposes of any particularoffice or proceedings.In this case, the Writ of Summons was initiated or signed by Peluola, Lalude & Co., afirm of solicitors which is not a person entitled to practice as a barrister and solicitorand whose name is not on the roll of Barristers and solicitors in the Supreme Court ofNigeria.The cases of Okafor vs. Nweke (2007) 10 NWLR (pt. 1043) 521 at 534 and PeakMerchant Bank vs. Nigeria Deposit Insurance Corporation (2011) 12 NWLR (pt. 1261)253 and Ogundele vs. Agiri & Anor. (2009) 12 S.C. (pt. 1) 135 at 165 have been citedin support and the consensus of judicial opinion from the apex to the base seem to bethat such defect or omission rendered the entire proceedings a nullity ab initio, thedefect being irreparable.The reason, in my view, why the entire proceedings become a nullity is that it was notbegun at all. If it was not begun, there is nothing to cure or remedy as the learnedcounsel for the 1st - 4th respondents tearfully pleaded. Being a nullity, it does notexist. As it does not exist, every superstructure founded or erected thereupon rests onnothing and therefore is vitiated. The superstructures include the proceedings and thejudgment of the lower Court the subject of this appeal. They all rest on nothing andare therefore vitiated by being set aside.I am bound by the latest Supreme Court Judgment on the point and of course our ownjudgments which followed the Supreme Court.In the same case we did in this Court my learned brother Obietonbara Daniel Kalio JCAsaid thus:-A law firm cannot file processes in Court, it is only a legal practitioner whose name ison the roll of Legal Practitioners that can. Okafor vs. Nweke (2007) 10 NWLR (part1043) p. 521 and a host of other cases have made this position absolutely clear. Alegal practitioner who has filed a process in Court in the name of a law firm will dowell to file a fresh process in the name of a legal practitioner. To proceed in the nameof a law firm will, unfortunately, only result in a cul-de-sac.?The Cul-de-Sac, is that the exercise however extensive or labourious, it may havebeen result in a nullity and futility."Per OKORONKWO, J.C.A. (Pp. 15-18, Paras. B-B) -read in context
(201
7) LP
ELR-42
428(
CA)
2. PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - SIGNING OF COURT PROCESS(ES): Effect of acourt process signed in the name of a law firm"The main issue on the appeal is about the effect of a Writ of Summons or otheroriginating process begun by a firm of legal practitioner not registered in the roll ofLegal Practitioners Act. The Writ which was issued by Chief Olusegun Otayemi & Co. isnot a person entitled to practice as a barrister and solicitor. The name of the firm isnot on the roll of Barristers and Solicitors in the Supreme Court of Nigeria. See Okaforv. Nweke (2007) 10 NWLR (pt. 1043) pg. 521 at 534.The entire proceedings on the writ is a nullity as the lower Court has no jurisdiction toentertain it."Per FASANMI, J.C.A. (Pp. 18-19, Paras. E-B) - read in context
3. PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - SIGNING OF COURT PROCESS(ES): Effect of acourt process signed in the name of a law firm"I agree that the originating processes having been signed by a law firm, rather than alegal practitioner whose name is on the roll of barristers and solicitors in the SupremeCourt of Nigeria, the proceeding is a nullity."Per IYIZOBA, J.C.A. (P. 19, Paras. D-E) -read in context
(201
7) LP
ELR-42
428(
CA)
NONYEREM OKORONKWO, J.C.A. (Delivering the
Leading Judgment): This appeal arose from the judgment
of Oyo State High Court delivered on 29th April, 2009
wherein Hon. Justice S.O. Akintola granted the claims of
the plaintiff herein respondent and dismissed the counter
claim of the defendant herein appellant.
In commencing the action, the respondent as plaintiff by
his solicitors has couched his writ of summons or rather the
application therefore as follows:
WRIT OF SUMMONS
INDORSEMENTS
The plaintiff’s claims from the Defendants jointly and
severally as follows:
(1) A declaration that the entire premises known as
11, Oba Abimbola Road, Felele, Ibadan (formerly
known as S7/464 Felele Layout, Challenge, Ibadan)
forms part of the Estate of Alhaja Ayinke Aberuagba.
(2) An Order directing the Defendants to hand over
vacant possession of the premises to the Plaintiff for
denying Alhaja Ayinke Aberuagba’s title.
(3) Damages/menses profits at the rate of N10,000.00
per month from the month of January, 2002 until
possession is
1
(201
7) LP
ELR-42
428(
CA)
delivered.
……
PLAINTIFF’S SOLICITORS
Chief Olusegun Otayemi & Co. Solicitors & Advocates
70 Bonojo Street, Box 542, Ijebu- Ode, Nigeria
03-430816,431554
c/o Chief Olatunji Ogunyemi,
43, Liberty Road, Oke Ado, Ibadan.
This writ was issued by Chief Olusegun Otayemi & Co. of
Counsel to the Plaintiff whose address for Service is
Chief Olatunji Ogunyemi 43, Liberty Road, Oke-Ado Ibadan
agent for Chief Olusegun Otayemi & Co. Legal
Practitioner for the said plaintiff who resides at Bonojo
Street, Ijebu-Ode
(mention the city, town or district and also the name
of the Street and number of the house of the
plaintiff’s residence, if any).
In like manner as the writ of summons, the statement of
claim at pages 2 & 3 of the record followed the same
pattern. The amended statement of claim did not deviate
from the pattern of signing the originating summons in the
name of the firm of solicitors of the plaintiff being Chief
Olusegun Otayemi & Co. Solicitors &
2
(201
7) LP
ELR-42
428(
CA)
Advocates.
The case at the trial Court is in respect of property known
as and situates at No. 11 Oba Abimbola Road, Felele
Ibadan formerly described as S7/464 Felele Layout,
Challenge, Ibadan which belonged to Late Alhaja Ayinkie
Aberuagba. The Late Alhaja Ayinke Aberuagba had tenants
on the land including the appellants who were rent paying
tenants.
At the death of the Landlady, Alhaja Aberuagba without
issue and intestate, the property so described devolved on
the respondent Alhaji Saliu Aberuagba who sought to
recover the property from the occupying tenants herein
appellants.
The appellants admit that they were tenants of the
deceased Alhaja Ayinke Aberuagba up till the 21st of
November, 2001 when they agreed with the Late Ayinke
Aberuagba for the sale to them (i.e. appellants) of the
property for the sum of three Million Naira (N3,000.000.00)
and that they had paid a sum of One Million, five Hundred
Thousand Naira (1,500,000.00) in part payment. There was
no receipt or other memorandum evidencing the
transaction before the Late Alhaja died about 17th
December, 2001.
Against the facts, the learned trial Court entered judgment
for the
(201
7) LP
ELR-42
428(
CA)
3
(201
7) LP
ELR-42
428(
CA)
respondent and dismissed the counter-claim of the
appellants claiming ownership of the property in issue.
Dissatisfied with the outcome, the appellant filed a Notice
of Appeal of six grounds at pp 173 – 177A of the record. Of
particular interest for the immediate purpose of this appeal
is ground 4 thereof which reads thus:
The learned trial judge erred in law when he entertained
and granted the plaintiff’s claim when the Writ of Summons
and the Statement of Claim was issued, filed and signed by
a person not known to law and in contravention of Section
2(1) of the Legal Practitioner Act Cap. 207, L.F.N.
PARTICULARS
i. The Writ of Summons and Statement of Claim in this suit
was filed and signed by Chief Olusegun Otayemi & Co.
ii. Chief Olusegun Otayemi & Co. is not a Legal Practitioner
recognized by the law.
The appellants raised the fol lowing issues for
determination:
i. Whether the initiating processes by the Respondent in
this suit having been issued by A.O. Otayemi & Co, a non-
cognizable legal practitioner robs, the trial Court of its
jurisdiction to entertain the suit. Covers ground 4.
4
(201
7) LP
ELR-42
428(
CA)
ii. Whether the trial judge was wrong in granting, the
Respondent’s reliefs, when Plaintiff/Respondent’s claim is
not maintainable and sustainable in view of the plaintiff’s
lack of locus standi to institute this suit. Covers grounds 1,
3 & 8.
iii. Whether the learned trial judge was not in error to have
awarded N10,000.00 per month to the Respondent as the
rental value of the premises known as No. 11, Oba
Abimbola Road, Felele, Ibadan notwithstanding evidence
part payment for the property and existence of other
tenants in occupation of part of the property. Covers
ground 2.
iv. Whether the learned trial judge properly and/or
adequately considered the counter-claim of the Appellants
and the totality of the evidence led by the parties before
dismissing the counter-claim. Covers grounds 5, 6, 7 and 9.
In reaction to this threshold issue, the respondents in their
brief raised a Preliminary Objection by which in the main,
they argue that ground 4 of the ground of appeal and issues
therefrom are incompetent because they are not matters or
issues that directly arose from the judgment subject of
appeal citing the cases
5
(201
7) LP
ELR-42
428(
CA)
of Abubakar & Anor. Vs. Joseph & Anor. (2008) 5-6 SC
(pt. II) 146 and Lasisi Ogbe vs. Sule Asade (2009) 12
SC (pt. III) 37 at 56-57.
In particular, the respondent argued, in showing that the
Writ of Summons signed by a firm of Legal Practitioners
made no impact submitted as follows:
In the circumstances of this case, the Defendants (now
Appellants) have not asserted nor shown any prejudice that
they have suffered by reason of the Writ of Summons being
additionally endorsed with the name of Chief Olusegun
Otayemi & Co. (Solicitors), after the Writ had been properly
issued in line with the appropriate Rules of the High Court.
What is more? We humbly refer my Lords to Order 5 Rule
12 of the High Court Civil Procedure Rules of Oyo State
1988 and submit that a Writ of Summons shall not become
invalidated by the insertion of a firm or chambers or the
business name of a lawyer since what the Rules provides is
that the Writ should be endorsed with “the Legal
Practitioner’s name or firm and a business address of his
with the jurisdiction”. We submit with respect that the use
of the word “or” within the context of
6
(201
7) LP
ELR-42
428(
CA)
Order 5 Rule 12(1) is to import the disjunctive connotation.
What is required is the Legal Practitioners name “or” his
f irm’s “or” chambers business address. In the
circumstances of this case, the Writ of Summons at page 1
to 1A of the Record in this case adequately satisfies the
provisions of Order 5 Rule 12(1), the decision of the
Supreme Court in Okafor vs. Nweke cited by the Appellants
notwithstanding.
In the same vein Sirs, Order 2 Rule 2 of the High Court
Civil Rules of Oyo State prescribes that non-compliance
with the Rules in the process of beginning or purporting to
begin any proceedings in any form whatsoever should be
treated as an irregularity which should not nullify any
proceedings or documents or judgment obtained.
In view of the fact that the Writ of Summons in this case,
had been issued (duly signed by the Registrar of the Court
below), we urge the Court to hold that this action had been
properly initiated.
The second process that was purportedly signed by “A.O.
Otayemi & Co.” in the case is the First Amended Statement
of Claim shown on pages 10 to 12 of the Records and the
following
7
(201
7) LP
ELR-42
428(
CA)
submissions are being urged on your Lordships in respect
of the said process.
It is our respectful submission that the failure to indicate
the name of the Legal Practitioner on the said process is an
irregularity under Order 2 Rule 2 of the High Court of Oyo
State Civil Procedure Rules. The Appellants have not
suffered any prejudice whatsoever and have not claimed to
have suffered any. We urge the Court to hold that we have
left the age of using technicality to defeat the end of
justice. What the Courts do these days is to look at the
substance in a matter devoid of any technical inhibition. We
commend the following cases to my Lords:-
(a) CHIEF EYO OGBONI & 2 ORS. VS. CHIEF OJE
OJAH (1996) 6 SCNJ 140 @ 156.
(b) CONSORTIUM M.C. VS. N.E.P.A. (1992) 6 NWLR
(Pt. 45) 246) 132 @ 142.
(c) BELLO VS. A.G. OYO STATE (1986) 6 NWLR (Pt.
45) 828.
(d) OKONJO VS. DR. ODJE (1985) 10 S.C. 267.
In OGBONI VS. OJAH (supra), Iguh JSC at page 156 of
the Report put the matter succinctly as follows:-
“It ought to be stressed that our Courts, again
inappropriate cases, would appear, quite rightly, to have
shifted away from the narrow
8
(201
7) LP
ELR-42
428(
CA)
technical approach to justice which characterized some
earlier decisions. Instead they now pursue the course of
substantial justice, a situation which clearly deserves great
commendations."
and specifically in response to the issues raised about the
competence of the originating summons in the suit that led
the appeal, respondents forcefully argued thus:-
In making their submissions, the Appellants in Paragraph
4.6 of their Brief have cited the case of OKAFOR VS.
NWEKE (2007) All FWLR (pt. 308) page 1016 and had
copiously quoted Justice Onnoghen’s comments while
asking your Lordships to follow the decision in holding that
the Writ of Summons and Statement of Claim in this appeal
having been signed by Chief Olusegun Otayemi & Co. are
incompetent.
My Lords, with the greatest respect, we respectfully beg to
differ. We submit with respect that the Supreme Court did
not purport to lay down a general authority but had given
the judgment in Nweke in the light of the peculiar facts of
the case. Now in Nweke, what was in issue were Motion on
Notice and Briefs of Appeal. The filing of these two
documents was regulated by the Supreme Court
9
(201
7) LP
ELR-42
428(
CA)
Rules. Nweke’s appeal has nothing to do with the original
Writ of Summons and Statement of Claim issued in
Nweke’s case. Filing of Writ of Summons and issuance of
same are matters exclusively regulated by the Rules of the
respective High Courts.
The Supreme Court rules which regulates the filing of
Motions and Appellants Briefs that were consequently
struck out has not provision that was similar in terms and
effect to Order 2 Rule 2 of the High Court Civil Procedure
Rules which deals with non-compliance with the Rules of
the Court.
Aside from the above Sirs, their Lordships of the Supreme
Court in making a determination in OKAFOR VS. NWEKE
(supra) did not consider the effect of a subsisting Supreme
Court decision (made by a full Court) in AUGUSTA COLE
VS. SERGINS OLATUNJI MARTINS & ANOR. Reported
in (1968) 1 All NLR 161 particularly at 165 where Lewis
JSC delivering the lead decision of the Court on a matter
similar to the situation in Nweke held as follows:-
“In our view, having regard to the context of Rule 4 of the
Registration of Title (Appeals) Rules, the purpose of which
on this issue it seems to us is to ensure
10
(201
7) LP
ELR-42
428(
CA)
that the name of the Legal Practitioner giving notice of
appeal and representing the Appellant is clearly known,
then it is sufficient compliance with the requirement for a
Legal Practitioner to sign and give his name. if a Legal
Practitioner practicing alone gives the name under which
he is registered as a business name as this can only refer
and apply to the Legal practitioner who so holds himself
out as practicing under the business name. No possible
doubt or confusion can therefore arise in these
circumstances……..The effect of registering a business
name under the Registration of Business Name Act 1961 is
that where only one person constitutes that business it is
correct to describe that person as in the terms of registered
business name in other words Ladner & Co. here referred
solely to Mr. H. A. Ladner.”
It is obvious that their Lordships of the Supreme Court in
the 2007 Nweke case did not consider the above quoted
decision hence the holding in the Nweke case.
All that effort by the respondent was in response to the
submission of the appellants thus:
My Lords, the Respondent commenced this suit filed vide a
Writ
11
(201
7) LP
ELR-42
428(
CA)
of Summons and Statement of Claim dated 10th of May,
2002. The said Writ of Summons and Statement of Claim
was issued in the name of Chief Olusegun Otayemi & Co –
See page 1-3 of the record of proceedings.
Submit that for a Court to have jurisdiction over a matter,
certain feature must be present and co-exist. The said
features for a Court to have jurisdiction are:-
(i) Court is properly constituted as regards numbers and
qualification of the bench, no member is disqualified for
one reason or another.
(ii) The subject matter of the case is within its jurisdiction
and there is not feature in the case which prevents the
Court from exercising its jurisdiction.
(iii) The case comes before the Court initiated by due
process of law and upon fulfillment of any condition
precedent to the exercise of jurisdiction.
See: MADUKOLU VS. NKEMDILIM 1 ACLC PAGE 221
@ 228 SKENCONSULT VS. UKEY (1981) 1 S.C. 6.
Submit further that where the jurisdiction of a Court is
being challenged to entertain a suit, the Court will consider
the Writ of Summons and Statement of Claim before the
court.
See:- TUKUR VS. GOVT. OF GONGOLA STATE (1989) 4
12
(201
7) LP
ELR-42
428(
CA)
NWLR PT. 117 PAGE 517; GAFAR VS. GOVT. OF
KWARA STATE (2007) 4 NWLR PT. 1024 @ PAGE 375
In the instant case, the initiating process, that is, the Writ
of Summons and Statement of Claim and all the
Respondent processes issued in this suit was signed by
Chief Olusegun Otayemi & Co.
My Lords, by the combined reading of the provisions of
Section 2 (1) and 24 of the Legal Practitioners Act 1990 L.
F. N, it is only a Legal Practitioner whose name is on the
roll that can engage in any form of legal practice in
Nigeria, that is, cause to be issued and sign any legal
initiating processes in a Court of law.
It is not in doubt that Chief Olusegun Otayemi @ Co. is not
a Legal practitioner whose name is on the roll, therefore,
the initiating process in this suit having been issued by
Chief Olusegun Otayemi & Co. is defective and it robs the
Court of its jurisdiction to entertain the suit.
My Lords, the Supreme Court in a similar circumstance on
issuance of processes similar to the one in hand had
occasion to consider the legality and cognoscibility of
processes issued in the name of JHC OKOLO SAN & Co. vis-
à-vis, the jurisdiction
13
(201
7) LP
ELR-42
428(
CA)
of the Court in the case of OKAFOR VS. NWEKE (2007)
AFWLR part 308 page 1016 pp @ 1026A - 1027A
where Onnoghen JSC held thus:-
“…… it follows that the said JHC Okolo SAN & 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 Appellant’s Brief of Argument
signed and issued by the firm known and called JHC Okolo
SAN & Co. are in competent in law.”
We respectfully urge my lords to follow the above decision
and hold that the Writ of Summons and Statement of Claim
in this appeal issued and signed by Chief Olusegun Otayemi
& Co. is incompetent as Chief Olusegun Otayemi & Co.
cannot file any processes in the Courts.
My Lords, where the initiating processes by which suit was
commenced is incompetent, it robs the Court of its
jurisdiction and no matter how well conducted the
proceedings are, it still remains a nullity. The initiating
processes in this suit is defective and we urge my lords to
so hold that the judgment of the trial Court granting the
Plaintiff/Respondent’s claim is a nullity having been
14
(201
7) LP
ELR-42
428(
CA)
predicated on a defective Write of Summons and Statement
of Claim.
The issue raised from Ground 4 of the ground of appeal is
one of fundamental importance and as the law stands
presently, it touches on the jurisdiction of the Court to
entertain such case and also relates to the competence of
the suit so commenced.
The arguments of the respondents are indeed persuasive
but as it is, the law on the point now is as espoused by the
Supreme Court in Okafor vs. Nweke (2007) A FWLR Pt.
308 Page 1016 @ 1026 – 1027.
As it stands now and until the Supreme Court in its wisdom
decides to vary or overrule that decision it remains binding
its effect being to nullify a writ of summons or other
originating process begun by a firm of Legal Practitioners
not registered in the roll of Legal Practitioners as
stipulated in the Legal Practitioners Act.
In a similar case Chief Fatai Adegbiyi & Ors. vs. Chief
Sikiru Balogun & Ors. Appeal No. Ca/I/4/2012
unreported Court of Appeal Ibadan delivered on 22nd
January, 2016 raising similar issue as in this appeal, I said
as follows:-
The various High Court Civil Procedure Rules provide
copiously for
15
(201
7) LP
ELR-42
428(
CA)
mode of commencing civil actions by writ of summons.
Upon the requisite endorsements such writ of summon
shall be signed by the intending Claimant or his Legal
Practitioner.
In practice, most suits are signed off by a Legal Practitioner
and who a Legal Practitioner is, is aptly defined in Section
24 of the Legal Practitioners Act 1975 as a person entitled
in accordance with the provisions of this act to practice as
a barrister or as a barrister and solicitor, either generally
or for the purposes of any particular office or proceedings.
In this case, the Writ of Summons was initiated or signed
by Peluola, Lalude & Co., a firm of solicitors which is not a
person entitled to practice as a barrister and solicitor and
whose name is not on the roll of Barristers and solicitors in
the Supreme Court of Nigeria.
The cases of Okafor vs. Nweke (2007) 10 NWLR (pt.
1043) 521 at 534 and Peak Merchant Bank vs. Nigeria
Deposit Insurance Corporation (2011) 12 NWLR (pt.
1261) 253 and Ogundele vs. Agiri & Anor. (2009) 12
S.C. (pt. 1) 135 at 165 have been cited in support and the
consensus of judicial opinion from the apex to the base
seem to be that such
16
(201
7) LP
ELR-42
428(
CA)
defect or omission rendered the entire proceedings a
nullity ab initio, the defect being irreparable.
The reason, in my view, why the entire proceedings become
a nullity is that it was not begun at all. If it was not begun,
there is nothing to cure or remedy as the learned counsel
for the 1st – 4th respondents tearfully pleaded. Being a
nullity, it does not exist. As it does not exist, every
superstructure founded or erected thereupon rests on
nothing and therefore is vitiated. The superstructures
include the proceedings and the judgment of the lower
Court the subject of this appeal. They all rest on nothing
and are therefore vitiated by being set aside.
I am bound by the latest Supreme Court Judgment on the
point and of course our own judgments which followed the
Supreme Court.
In the same case we did in this Court my learned brother
Obietonbara Daniel Kalio JCA said thus:-
A law firm cannot file processes in Court, it is only a
legal practitioner whose name is on the roll of Legal
Practitioners that can. Okafor vs. Nweke (2007) 10
NWLR (part 1043) p. 521 and a host of other cases
have made this position absolutely clear. A legal
17
(201
7) LP
ELR-42
428(
CA)
practitioner who has filed a process in Court in the
name of a law firm will do well to file a fresh process
in the name of a legal practitioner. To proceed in the
name of a law firm will, unfortunately, only result in a
cul-de-sac.
The Cul-de-Sac, is that the exercise however extensive or
labourious, it may have been result in a nullity and futility.
Accordingly, the appeal succeeds and is allowed on Ground
4 of the grounds of appeal alone as other issues were not
considered.
In consequence, the judgment of the Oyo State High Court
in Suit No.I/427/2002 is hereby set aside for jurisdictional
incompetence. No order as to cost.
MODUPE FASANMI, J.C.A.: I have been privileged to
read in advance the draft of the lead judgment of my
learned brother Nonyerem Okoronkwo, JCA.
The main issue on the appeal is about the effect of a Writ of
Summons or other originating process begun by a firm of
legal practitioner not registered in the roll of Legal
Practitioners Act. The Writ which was issued by Chief
Olusegun Otayemi & Co. is not a person entitled to practice
as a barrister and solicitor. The name of the firm is
18
(201
7) LP
ELR-42
428(
CA)
not on the roll of Barristers and Solicitors in the Supreme
Court of Nigeria. See Okafor v. Nweke (2007) 10 NWLR
(pt. 1043) pg. 521 at 534.
The entire proceedings on the writ is a nullity as the lower
Court has no jurisdiction to entertain it.
I join my learned brother in allowing the appeal on this
jurisdictional issue and abide by the consequential orders
contained therein.
CHINWE EUGENIA IYIZOBA, J.C.A.: I read before now
the Judgment just delivered by my learned brother,
NONYEREM OKORONKWO JCA. I agree that the
originating processes having been signed by a law firm,
rather than a legal practitioner whose name is on the roll of
barristers and solicitors in the Supreme Court of Nigeria,
the proceeding is a nullity. I abide by the consequential
orders of my learned brother in the lead Judgment.
19
(201
7) LP
ELR-42
428(
CA)