DIKIO V. N.S.I.T.F. MGT. BOARD (2025) 14 NWLR (PT. 2004) 129
ON RESPONSIBILITIES ASSOCIATED WITH RANK OF SENIOR ADVOCATE OF NIGERIA
Per ABIRU, J.S.C. at pages 166-167, paras. C-B:
“This is an appeal that should never have been filed. From the records of proceedings, the lead counsel to the appellants in this case from the High Court to this court is a Senior Advocate of Nigeria. It is presumed that by reason of the high office he holds, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria must have knowledge of the rudimentary and basic principles of the Law of Contract. This knowledge, with respect, was not displayed in the conduct of this case from the High Court up to this court.
The court concedes that both the notices of appeal and the appellants’ briefs of arguments filed in this court and in the Court of Appeal were signed by a junior of the learned Silk in Chambers, but the name of the learned Silk was endorsed on both of the processes as one of the lawyers that settled them. This court wants to believe that the name of the learned Silk was just inserted on the notices of appeal and the briefs of arguments and that he did not take part in strategizing for both appeals and did not read the final copies of the briefs of arguments before they were filed.
This court is sure that if the learned Silk had studied the judgment of the High Court and read the notices of appeal and the briefs of arguments filed in the Court of Appeal and in this appeal, he would have seen that both appeals were pointless as the High Court did a thorough and an excellent job in analysing and disposing of the claims of the appellants. This would have saved this court the agony of hearing an appeal that requires a mere restatement of the elementary principles of the law of contract taught to second year university students to resolve.
Part of the attendant responsibilities and expectations that should come with the conferment of the rank of Senior Advocate of Nigeria are that counsel so conferred would leave the realm of the lawyers that engage the scarce judicial time of the courts with mundane and humdrum cases that require only restatements of elementary legal principles to dispense with, and that cases coming to court from the Chambers of such counsel would be one that would excite and challenge existing legal principles and seek to create new jurisprudence. This appeal, and indeed the appeal filed in the Court of Appeal, are not a good testament for the rank of Senior Advocate of Nigeria.”
HERITAGE BANK LTD .v. MEENS NIGERIA LTD. (2025) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1994) 321 (SC)
ON WHO CAN SIGN COURT PROCESS AS A LEGAL PRACTITIONER IN NIGERIA AND WHETHER COURT PROCESS SIGNED IN THE NAME OF A LAW FIRM IS COMPETENT
The provisions of sections 2(1) and 24 of the Legal Practitioners Act have been construed to the effect that:
- A legal practitioner is one that is contemplated by the combined provisions of the sections.
- For a court process (especially an originating process) to be valid, it must be signed by the legal practitioner who franked it.
- A court process not signed by a legal practitioner, but signed by a firm of legal practitioners, is indelibly incompetent and liable to be struck out by the court.
This is so because the incompetence ousts the court’s jurisdiction to adjudicate over the action.
[Regd. Trustees, The Apostolic Church v. Akindele (1967) SCNLR 205; Okafor v. Nweke (2007) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1043) 52; Oketade v. Adewunmi (2010) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1195) 63; SLB Consortium Ltd. v. N.N.P.C. (2011) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1252) 317; Const. Res. (Nig.) Ltd. v. U.B.A. Plc (2011) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1274) 592; Okonkwo v. U.B.A. Plc (2011) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1274) 614; Bala v. Dikko (2013) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1343) 52; Braithwaite v. Skye Bank Plc (2013) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1346) 1; F.B.N. Plc v. Maiwada (2013) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1348) 444; Alawiye v. Ogunsanya (2013) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1348) 570; Min., W & T., Adamawa State v. Yakubu (2013) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1351) 481; Okarika v. Samuel (2013) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1352) 19; Nigerian Army v. Samuel (2013) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1375) 466; Dankwambo v. Abubakar (2016) 2 NWLR (Pt. 1495) 157; S.P.D.C.N. Ltd. v. Sam Royal Hotel (Nig.) Ltd. (2016) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1514) 318; Tanimu v. Rabiu (2018) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1610) 505; B.O.I. Ltd. v. Awojugbagbe Light Ind. Ltd. (2018) 6 NWLR (Pt 1615) 220; Heritage Bank Ltd. v. Bentworth Finance (Nig.) Ltd. (2018) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1625) 420; B.L.L.S. Co. Ltd. v. M.V. Western Star (2019) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1678) 489; Yusuf v. Mobil Oil (Nig.) Plc (2019) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1689) 374; Salami v. Muse (2019) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1689) 301; Alikor v. Ogwo (2019) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1695) 331; Yusuf v. Mobil Oil (Nig.) Plc (2020) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1710) 1; JVCPP (UK) Ltd. v. Famiyide (2020) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1744) 334; Ajibode v. Gbadamosi (2021) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1776) 475; Solumade v. Kuti (2022) 1 NWLR (Pt. 1810) 31 referred to.]
(Pp. 359-360, paras. H-G)
AMINU V. SUBAIR [2024] 8 NWLR (Pt. 1939) 99
ON WHO IS A LEGAL PRACTITIONER AND WHO IS ENTITLED TO PRACTICE AS BARRISTER AND SOLICITOR IN NIGERIA
The provisions of sections 2(1) and 24 of the Legal Practitioners Act, Cap. 207, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 1990 are in pari materia with sections 2(1) and 24 of the Legal Practitioners Act Cap. L 11, Laws of the federation of Nigeria, 2004. Section 2(1) of the Act states that subject to the provisions of the Act, a person shall be entitled to practice as a barrister and solicitor if and only if his name is on the roll. And section 24 of the act provides that unless the context otherwise requires, “legal practitioner” means a person entitled in accordance with the provisions of the Act to practice as a barrister or as a barrister and solicitor, either generally or for the purposes of any particular office or proceedings. (p.126, paras. F-H).
ABINDE V. SALAKO (2025) 3 NWLR (PT. 1978) 159
ON HOW TO AUTHENTICATE LEGAL PRACTITIONER
In Nigeria, the only way to authenticate a legal practitioner is to have his name on the roll. Thus, when a legal practitioner signs a court process or any document, the name can be verified by cross-checking the roll to confirm whether or not the signatory in issue is a bona fide legal practitioner. If it cannot be confirmed that the signatory is a legal practitioner, then the process in issue is incompetent and therefore null and void. (P. 192, paras. C-D).
NWITE V. P.D.P (2023) 7 NWLR (PT. 1883) 357
ON PROPRIETY OF COUNSEL APPEARING AS WITNESS FOR CLIENT
The provisions of Rule 20 (1), (4) and (6) of the Rules of Professional Conduct for Legal Practitioners, 2007 made pursuant to the Legal Practitioners Act, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004, prohibits a legal practitioner from being a witness for his client in a case in which he appears as counsel for such client, and once he realizes that he is to be a witness, he should excuse himself from the further conduct of the case, particularly where contentious issues are involved. Although the Rules do not render evidence given or deposed to by a legal practitioner in a client’s case in which he appears as counsel, inadmissible in evidence in the proceedings of court, they render such legal practitioner liable for unprofessional conduct in contravention of the Rules and other appropriate penalties to be imposed by the court before which the contravention or breach occurs. (Pp. 398-399, paras. G-A).