Notifications
Clear all
Topic starter
June 28, 2019 9:54 am
"In Okafor v Nweke (supra), the Supreme Court, per ONNOGHEN, JSC, (now CJN) held as follow:
"… From the above provision, it is clear that the person who is entitled to practice as a legal practitioner must have had his name on the roll. It does not say that his signature must be on the roll but his name… The combined effect of the above provisions is that for a person to be qualified to practice as a legal practitioner, he must have his name in the roll otherwise he cannot engage in any form of legal practice in Nigeria…"
Touching on the issue bothering on signing of legal process, the learned jurist held:
""The question that follows is whether J.H.C. OKOLO SAN & CO is a legal practitioner recognised by the law? From the submissions of both counsel, it is very clear that the answer to that question is in the negative. In other words, both senior counsel agree that J.H.C. OKOLO SAN & CO is not a legal practitioner and therefore cannot practice as such by say, filing processes in the courts of this country. It is in recognition of this fact that accounts for the argument of learned Senior Advocate for the applicants that to determine the actual person who signed the processes evidence would have to be adduced which would necessarily establish the fact that the signature on top of the inscription J.H.C. OKOLO SAN & CO. actually belongs to J.H.C. OKOLO SAM who is a legal practitioner in the roll. I had earlier stated that the law does not say that what should be in the roll should be the signature of the legal practitioner but his name. That apart, it is very clear that by looking at the all the documents, the signature which belongs to J.H.C. OKOLO SAN & CO. or was appended on its behalf since it was signed on top of that name. Since both counsel agree that J.H.C. OKOLO SAN & CO is not a legal practitioner recognised by the law, it follows that the said J.H.C. 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 applicants brief of argument in support of the said motion all signed and issued by the firm known and called J.H.C. OKOLO SAN & CO. are incompetent in law particularly as the said firm of J.H.C. OKOLO SAN & CO. is not a registered legal practitioner…."
See also Okpe v Fan Milk Plc & Anor (2016) LPELR – 42562 (SC); GTB v Innoson Nigeria Ltd (2017) LPELR – 42368 (SC); Okarika & Ors v Samuel & Anor (2013) LPELR – 19935 (SC)".
PER A. O. OBASEKI-ADEJUMO, J.C.A. IN
ABIGAIL ROLAKE BELLO & ORS VS ALLIANCE LIFE INSURANCE PLC & ORS
APPEAL NO: CA/L/61/2013
LEGALPEDIA ELECTRONIC CITATION: LER[2019] CA/L/61/2013
