Implications of Signing Court Processes with Name of Law Firm in Lieu of Lawyer’s Name in Nigeria

By Abdulrasaq Kamaldeen

The name of the person who appended the signature on court processes is very necessary to its credibility. It adds weight and merit to the processes brought before the court. Without a name, the court may embark on a journey of discovery to determine the signatory, and this may cause unwarranted delay in the proceedings.

Like the signature, the name of the signatory in a document is very essential, because it will clearly identify whose signature it is, and prevent the need for courts to call evidence to verify the signatory.

Then, to the bone of contention, who is eligible to sign documents or court processes? The person who is competent to sign and indicate his name on the court processes must be entitled to practice in Nigeria. Let’s take cognizance of Section 2(1) of the Legal Practitioners Act, which provides as follows:

“Subject to the provisions of this Act, a person shall be entitled to practice as a barrister and solicitor if, and only if, his name is on the roll.”

Therefore, section 24 (interpretation section) of the said Act further explains as follows:

In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires, the following expressions have the meaning assigned to them respectively, that is to say, “legal practitioner” means a person entitled in accordance with the provisions of this Act to practice as a barrister or solicitor, either generally or for the purposes of any particular office or proceedings.

In the above sections, one can deduce that the person who is competent to append a signature along with his name must be a legal practitioner, not a law firm. This issue has taken judicial blessing in the case of Okafor v. Nweke (2007) 19 W.R.N 1, where a motion on notice was signed by “J.H.C. Okolo, SAN & Co.” without indicating the name of counsel who signed it. Onnoghen, JSC (as he then was), said:

“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 on the roll; otherwise, he cannot engage in any form of legal practice in Nigeria. 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 by looking at the documents that the signature that learned counsel claimed to be his really belongs to J.H.C. Okolo SAN & Co. or was appended on its behalf since it was signed on top of that name. Since counsel agree that J.H.C. Okolo SAN & Co. is not a legal practitioner recognized 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 the firm known and called J.H.C. Okolo SAN & Co. is incompetent in law, particularly as the said firm of J.H.C. Okolo SAN & Co. is not a registered legal practitioner.”

Thus, if a signature is appended on behalf of a law firm and the name of the counsel who signed is nowhere to be found, the court will presume the signature belongs to the law firm, and thereby the document can not be legally tendered in the court. The provision of LPA is cleared in both section 2(1) and section 24.

Similarly, the court reinstated its position in the case of Network Securities Ltd. v. Dahiru & Ors. (2023) 1 W.R.N. that a law firm “cannot legally sign and/or file any process in the courts” and that any process signed by a law firm is “incompetent in law.”

In SLB Consortium v. NNPC, it held, “The signature of “Adewale Adesokan & Co.” on the originating summons robs the process of competence ab initio, as the said firm is not a registered legal practitioner enrolled to practice law as barrister and solicitor in this court. All the proceedings, which rested on the inchoate originating summons, are deemed not to have taken place in law. One cannot put something on nothing and expect it to stand. It has been established that the originating summons signed by a law firm was not initiated by due process. As the same is incompetent, this appeal rests on nothing.”

It’s imperative to note that the name of the counsel in the court processes gives more reliability and indicates the identity of the person so that no random person can sign the document, and any court processes signed by such a person or firm of lawyers are incompetent because they are not legal practitioners recognized in the LPA.

In Network Securities Ltd. v. Dahiru & Ors. (2023) 1 W.R.N., the court held that “it is established by sufficient authority that a condition precedent necessary to validate an originating process is that it must contain therein a signature of either the appellant or the appellant’s counsel, Okpe v. Fan Plc. & Anor. (2017) 6 WRN 1; LPELR-42562 (SC), Nigerian Army v. Samuel (2013) 39 WRN 39; (2013) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1375) 466 at 482, Kida v. Ogunmola 13 NWLR (Pt. 997) 377. The purpose of the foregoing sections is to ensure that only a legal practitioner whose name is on the roll of this court should sign court processes.”

Conclusively, the court processes without the name of the legal practitioner will be regarded as a mere letter or a love letter because it affects its credibility.

The writer is a 400 level law student from Usmanu Danfodiyo University Sokoto. He is a legal researcher and legal writer, he has written several legal articles.

He can be reached via: kamaldeenajetunmobi@gmail.con or 09072621530