"The greatest issue in contention in respect of issue one in this appeal is whether the Appellant's statement of claim is valid or not. This issue arose from ground one of the Appellant's grounds of appeal. Learned Appellant counsel had in his submission stated that it was wrong for the lower Court to have held that the statement of claim of the plaintiff at pages 102-107 of the case file was not signed by the maker, it was dated, not assessed and paid for and accordingly it is incurably defective. According to learned counsel for the Appellant, there are two set of statement of claim as could be seen from pages 3-8 of the main record allegedly prepared by Bamidele A. Alufa Esq. and another prepared by K.B.A. Badmus Esq on page 9-15 A look at the statement of claim on page 3-8 of the main record of appeals shows that (1) It was not signed (2) It was not dated (3) It was not assessed (4) It was not paid for On the statement of claim shown from pages 9-15 show the following (1) It was signed (2) The names of all the defendants now Respondents were altered (3) No heading as to the Court or division of filing as same was cancelled. (4) The names of the Plaintiffs were altered. (5) The statement of claim was altered to read Amended statement.

The Appellant's counsel stated that the statement of claim at pages 9-15 of the main Record which was later in time is the correct and authentic statement of claim could best be described as a draft document for the following reason (i) It has no heading as the heading has been cancelled. (ii) The names of all the defendants now Respondents were altered (iii) There is no endorsement on any of the mutilated sections of the document. All the above defects have devalued the document and makes it a speculative process that the Court will not be guided by it. The above defects also manifested itself on the statement of claim shown on pages 3-8 of the main record of Appeal. See Pastor Emmanuel Mobiyina Oshoffa & 12 Ors v. Superior Evangelist Simeon Kosoko & 14 Ors (2014) 3 NWLR 84 It is true that the lower Court had declared the writ of summons of the Appellant as having been properly filed. Coming to the statement of claim, the learned trial judge held thus "The Statement of Claim of the Plaintiff at pages 102-107 of the case file was not signed by the maker, it was not dated, not assessed and not paid for.

To my mind it is incurably defective." I am in complete agreement with the above conclusion and decision of the learned trial judge. By so doing, it is not true to say that the lower Court is aprobating and reprobating at the same which is not allowed to stand in law. The authority of Ngige v. Obi (Supra) cited in support by the Appellant is of no issue. All through the proceeding, the Respondents have been challenging the competence of the statement of claim only and not a writ of summons. A similar situation arose in the case of Alhaji Tajudeen Babatunde Hamzat & Anor v Alhaji Saliu Iyeremi Sanni & 2 Ors (2015) 5 NWLR (Pt 1453) 486 at 505. "Where a Statement of claim, upon which the evidence relied on by a trial Court was based, was not signed by a person known to law as a legal practitioner, as required by law, it is incompetent and it deserves to be discountenanced and struck out.

However, because the writ of summons by which the instant actions was commenced and which originated the action was properly signed by a legal practitioner as prescribed by law, it remains valid and could still be built upon as a solid foundation. It was the statement of claim upon which evidence was based that could not stand. Evidence led in the instant case based on incompetent statement of claim was also incompetent and should be discountenanced and struck out. Therefore, the writ of summons, which was separately filed several months before the statement of claim was filed, having been properly signed and competent could not and should not be allowed to be killed by an incompetent statement of claim. It stands while the statement of claim was struck out. (SKENCONSULT (NIG) LTD. VS UKEY (1981) 1 SC 6 referred to)." Striking out a claim is made in cases in which the action has not been properly constituted or the Court is not competent to hear the case. See Okafor v . Nnaife (1973) 1 ALL NLR 238. Striking out of the Appellant's statement of claim was therefore right in the circumstances of this case as statement of claim of the Appellant was not valid and the lower Court was right by striking it out."

Per ELECHI, J.C.A. IN OSAYOMI v. GOVERNMENT OF EKITI STATE & ORS CITATION: (2018) LPELR-43514(CA)