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)