It is settled law that a process prepared and filed in a court of law by a legal practitioner must be signed by the legal practitioner and it will be sufficient signature if the legal practitioner simply writes his own name over and above the name of his firm in which he carries out his practice.
![](https://thenigerialawyer.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/TheNigerialawyer-WhatsApp-Channel1.jpg")
On how processes filed in court are to be signed and the effect of a process signed by counsel without his name, the court has held;
“All processes filed in court are to be signed as follows,
- Firstly, the signature of counsel, which may be any contraption,
- Secondly, the name of counsel clearly written,
- Thirdly, who counsel represents,
- Fourthly, name and address of legal firm.
Once it cannot be said who signed the process, it is incurably bad and rules of court that seem to provide a remedy are of no use as a rule cannot override the legal Practitioner Act. See SLB Consortium Ltd v NNPC (2011) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1252) 317 SC.”
There appears to be a practice, on a trending note and conventionally so that, where a process carries more than a name, the person whose seal is affixed on the process, is called to identify himself by ticking same against his name. In GTB v Innoson Nig. Ltd (2017) 16 NWLR (Pt.1591) 181 SC, the Supreme Court held:
“that a court process that purports to be settled by a legal practitioner must as a requirement of statute, have not only the signature of the legal practitioner but also his name clearly shown and indicating that the signature is his. For the signature thereon appended to be valid, it must be traceable to a legal practitioner. The process must have the signature or mark of the legal practitioner either against his name, or over and above his name… The signature on each of them could not be verified or traced to any registered legal practitioner. In the instant case, the processes filed had on them at the signature column a signature that cannot be ascribed to any of the four persons including the names…( names withheld by me) who apparently are legal practitioners.”
A simple understanding of the afore cited decisions of the Supreme Court is to the effect that once there exist more than a single name on a process filed in court and in compliance with the requirements of Rule 10(1) of the Rules of Professional Conduct 2007, a seal is affixed on the said document, it is the person whose seal appears on the document that is called to sign against his name or by leaving a trace of his signature to his name.
But it does appear to be a departure as can be seen in the latest decision of the Court of Appeal, Kaduna Division in Maina v E.F.C.C (2020) 2 NWLR (Pt.1708) 251-252 paras. F-D Per Abundaga, J.C.A where the court held that,
“The Legal Practitioners Act, LFN, 2004, with particular reference to sections 2(1) and 24 thereof, was intended to cure a mischief; that of preventing fake lawyers parading themselves all over the place. It was however, not a complete success, as despite its promulgation, the practice it sought to check persisted with devastating indignation to the practice of law in Nigeria. Concerned about this the use of seal was introduced vide the Rules of Professional Conduct for Legal Practitioners 2007 to save the situation. Rule 10(1) of the Rules of Professional Conduct makes it mandatory for legal documents, including notice of appeal and all other processes filed in court to have affixed to them the seal of the legal practitioner who prepared them. That provision does not only help (and in fact has not only helped) to check the malaise of fake lawyers but has helped in identifying who among several lawyers whose names appear on a court process prepared or settled same, since two counsel cannot sign a court process. In this appeal, in compliance with rule 10(1) of the Rules of Professional Conduct the seal of the counsel who filed the notice of appeal is fixed beside the names of several counsel in the law form of Mamman Nasir & Co, appellant’s counsel. The first name in the list of counsel is the name of Mohammed Katu, Esq, above which is a signature. The name on the seal is Mohammed K. Ndanusa. Even without any name being ticked, is it not obvious that the notice of appeal was signed by Mohammed Kuta? I want to state without equivocation that where there is a seal on a court process, it is otiose to tick the name of counsel whose name is in the seal as the signatory on the document or process. Therefore the contention of the 1st respondent’s counsel that the signature on the notice of appeal is not traceable to any of the persons whose names appeared as counsel to the appellant lacks substance.”
From the above therefore, the question to which now begs for answer is, whether the appearance of a ones’ seal on a process without more, is an authentication of the signature of the holder especially so, when there are more than one name on the process?
L. G Jamala, Esq.
Reimagine your practice with the power of AI “...this is the only Nigerian book I know of on the topic.” — Ohio Books Ltd
Authored by Ben Ijeoma Adigwe, Esq., ACIArb (UK), LL.M, Dip. in Artificial Intelligence, Director, Delta State Ministry of Justice, Asaba, Nigeria.
Bonus:
Get a FREE eBook titled “How to Use the AI in Legalpedia and Law Pavilion” with every purchase.
How to Order: 📞 Call, Text, or WhatsApp: 08034917063 | 07055285878 📧 Email: benadigwe1@gmail.com 🌐 Website: www.benadigwe.com
Ebook Version: Access directly online at: https://selar.com/prv626
______________________________________________________________________ "You Don't Need To Be Rich, You Just Need To Start" — Victoria Ezeigwe, Esq Launches Investment Handbook For Nigerians Starting With ₦5,000
Get your copy today and take the first step toward financial growth:
_______________________________________________________________________ [A MUST HAVE] Evidence Act Demystified With Recent And Contemporary Cases And Materials
_______________________________________________________________________
