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

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?

CARE MUST BE OBSERVED IN PREPPING COURT PROCESSES

Tobi, J.C.A. in Joshua Fumudoh and Anor. v. Dominic Aboro and Anor. (1991) 9 NWLR (Pt.214) 210 at 225 where His Lordship had this to say:- “All I have done is send one message to counsel in the preparation of court processes. So much care is required and so much care should be taken. A Court process is not just like a letter to a friend where one can afford to slip here and there with little or no adverse effect. A Court process is a sacred and most important document which must be thoroughly done and thoroughly finished. The adverse party, as usual in the profession will always open his ears and his eyes very wide to pinpoint any error and capitalise on same. He is always on the toes of the opponent to ‘devour’ him. But surprisingly, learned counsel for the appellant did not see the points. It is possible he saw them and ignored them, knowing that they do not in reality detract from the merits of the objection as such.”

Was this dictum helpful?

UNSIGNED DOCUMENTS NOT ADMISSIBLE

The Supreme Court in Omega Bank (Nig) Plc v. O.B.C. Ltd. [2005] 8 NWLR (Part 928) 547 at 587 Paragraphs C – D per Tobi, JSC (as he then was) the Apex Court held inter alia that: “… It is my view that where a document is not signed, it may not be admitted in evidence. Even if it is admitted in evidence, the Court should not attach any probative value to it. This is because a document which is not signed has no origin in terms of its maker….at page 582 Paragraph A, His Lordship, Tobi, JSC of blessed memory further emphasized that:” A document which is not signed does not have any efficacy in law. As held in the cases examined, the document is worthless and a worthless document cannot be efficacious…”

Was this dictum helpful?

PAPER OF WRIT, PETITION, AND OTHER COURT PROCESSES COULD REPLACE AN AFFIDAVIT

I acknowledge that there is no hard and fast rule that a preliminary objection must be supported by an affidavit so long as enough material is placed before the trial court on which it can judicially and judiciously pronounce on the preliminary objection. Where the alleged offending writ, petition or other court process ex facie contains the relevant information against which an objection is being raised, the necessity to rely on affidavit evidence does not arise. See Bello v. National Bank of Nigeria [1992] 6 NWLR (Pt. 246) 206 at 219 (per Achike, JCA, as he then was).

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

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?

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?

No more related dictum to show.