Competence of a Law Firm to Sign an Originating Process
For more clarity on the topic, I’ll be making reference to the case of YONGO V. HANONGON (2024) 1 NWLR (PT. 1920) 593.
A brief narration of the fact of the case is that:
The case began as a result of a land ownership dispute in Benue State, Nigeria between the appellant and the respondent. The Appellants (Yongo and others) claimed ownership of certain pieces of land, alleging that they were lawfully granted those lands by traditional grantors and that they had developed and cultivated the lands peacefully for years. The action was commenced at the High Court by the appellant via a writ of summons and statement of claim against the respondents. However, the process was signed by “Ahua Albert Yawe & Co”. which was the appellant’s counsel law firm. The respondents denied the appellants’ claims and the 1st respondent filed a counter-claim. The Respondent (Hanongon), thereby contended in her counter-claim that her late father was the lawful holder of a Statutory Right of Occupancy and a Certificate of Occupancy issued by the Benue State Government, which covered the same parcel of land. At the end of the trial, the court dismissed the claims of the appellants and found in favour of the respondent.
The appellants not satisfied with the judgment of the trial court appealed to the Court of Appeal, in its judgment, the court of appeal affirmed the decision of the trial court and dismissed the appeal.
Still dissatisfied, the appellants appealed to the Supreme court and the 1st respondent for the first time raised a preliminary objection questioning the competence of the originating processes filed at the trial court. The respondent argued that the writ of summons and statement of claim signed by “Ahua Albert Yawe & Co”, a law firm, as counsel to the appellants was incompetent because it was in breach of sections 2(1) and 24 of the Legal Practitioners Act, 1975. The respondents further argued that the asserted incompetence of the originating processes went to the root of the jurisdiction of the trial court to entertain the suit and rendered the entire proceedings as well as the judgments of the trial court and the Court of Appeal a nullity.
In determining the appeal, the Supreme Court considered the provisions of Sections 2(1) and 24 of the Legal Practitioners Act, which reads:
“2(1) Subject to the provision 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.”
“24. Legal practitioner means a person entitled in accordance with the provisions of the Act to practice as a barrister or as a barrister and a solicitor, either generally or for the purpose of any particular office or proceedings.”
In view of the provisions above and in determining whether a Law firm can sign originating Court processes, The Supreme Court, in its judgment, held that:
“A firm of lawyers is not a legal practitioner within the meaning and intendment of section 24 of the Act. Put differently, a law firm or a firm of legal practitioners is not within the contemplation of sections 2(1) and 24 of the Legal Practitioners Act. The purpose of the sections is to ensure that only a legal practitioner whose name is on the Roll of the Supreme Court should sign court processes. The effect of signing an originating process by a law firm is that such a process is fundamentally defective. It is therefore incompetent.
In other words, any originating process or any process for that matter that violates section 2(1) and section 24 of the Legal practitioners Act robs the court of jurisdiction and whatever decision consequent on such violation would be a nullity.”
In the instant case, the law firm of “Ahua Albert Yawe & Co” signed the writ summons and statement of claim, which was the foundation of the appellants’ case at the trial court from which the appeal to the Supreme Court arose. However, the law firm of “Ahua Albert Yawe & Co” is not a person whose name was on the Roll of Legal practitioners in the Supreme Court of Nigeria. Further, the law firm of “Ahua Albert Yawe & Co” was not a person entitled to practice in accordance with the provisions of the Legal Practitioners Act. Therefore, law firm of “Ahua Albert Yawe & Co” is not qualified to sign an originating process like the writ of summons and statement of claim filed in the suit. The supreme court therefore concluded and agrees with the argument of the respondent that a law firm lacks the requisite personality or power to sign an originating process, and that where an originating process is signed by a law firm, it is defective and consequently goes to the jurisdiction of the court and cannot be waived by parties such as in the circumstance of this case. The supreme court therefore held that the appeal which originates from the writ of summons and statement of claim is incompetent and liable to be struck out.
The Supreme Court, in it’s judgment, went further to emphasize on the position of the law and rules of practice in the Nigerian legal system by holding that:
“By virtue of rules and practice of the courts in Nigeria, a condition precedent necessary to validate an originating process is that it must contain the signature of either the plaintiff or his counsel.”
Therefore, it is important to note that an originating process is one of the basics for conferring jurisdiction to the court and it is settled that jurisdiction is a threshold issue which is fundamental and crucial to adjudication. A court cannot assume jurisdiction to adjudicate in a cause or matter unless its jurisdiction has been properly invoked. It is crucial because where a court proceeds without jurisdiction to hear the case, the proceedings so embarked upon by the court are a nullity ab initio however well conducted.
About the Author:
Mukhtar Abdulrauf is a member of the Research and Litigation Directorate, Solace Chambers, Bayero University, Kano. He can be reached via 09084203981.
Comments
Post a Comment