Legal Practitioners (82)
HELD:
"By virtue of Section 36(1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended), for the determination of his civil rights and obligations, a citizen has the fundamental right to a counsel of his choice.
HELD:
"It is pertinent to point out herein, that contrary to the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent, the Supreme Court in the case of Yaki & Anor v. Bagudu & Ors. (2015) LPELR -SC. 722/2015, has held that failure of the legal practitioner who signed a process to affix his stamp, does not render the said process incompetent. The effect of such failure was to render the process improperly filed.
HELD:
"The issue resolved in the judgment just delivered by my learned brother, AMINA ADAMU AUGIE, JSC, in this appeal is not about the juristic personality of the complainant at the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee but only as to whether the Respondent, the Appellant has complained against in this appeal is a juristic persona. The judgment of my learned brother has resolved that issue to my satisfaction.
HELD:
"Clearly, the Issue in this Appeal is whether the Respondent is a juristic person capable of suing and of being sued in its name, which is why Fawehinmi V. NBA (No.2) (supra), takes center stage in this Appeal, because the exact same Issue was determined by this Court in that case, which involved the Order made by the NBA to its Members to boycott Special Military Tribunals established by the Federal Military Government in 1984, to try public officers.
HELD:
"It should be noted that the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee (LPDC) is not a party to the action leading to this appeal. The respondent is simply the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA), which by law is not a juristic person as it can neither sue nor be sued in a Court of law - see the case of Fawehinmi vs Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) (No 2) (1989) 2 NWLR (pt. 105) 558 at 595." WOME MOSES, ESQ v. NIGERIAN BAR ASSOCIATION(2019) LPELR-46918(SC)Per ONNOGHEN, J.S.C. (P. 14, Paras. C-D)
FACTS:
HELD:
"I have taken a critical look at the Originating processes before this Honourable Court and it is evident that the name of the legal practitioner who issued the writ is not the same as the name of the legal practitioner whose seal was attached to the said processes. I must be quick to point out that the provisions of the Rules of Professional Conduct, 2007 is directed at the Legal Practitioner to provide evidence of his qualification to practice law in Nigeria in addition to his name being in the Roll at the Supreme Court of Nigeria. There is no doubt that AWADIMUYA PRECIOUS NDIDI whose name appears on the Writ of Summons is a legal practitioner qualified to practice law in Nigeria. The question I ask myself is that is A.G.N ESEAGWU, the person who issued the writ a legal practitioner qualified to practice law in Nigeria. In answering this question, I discovered that it is rather fortunate that the same A.G.N ESEAGWU was the person who settled the Respondent's brief before this Honourable Court. The Respondent's brief carries the seal of A.G.N ESEAGWU ESQ. Therefore in my mind, I have no doubt that A.G.N ESEAGWU ESQ., is a legal practitioner qualified to practice law in Nigeria. In the event that I am wrong but I doubt, I am of the opinion that the issue raised by the Appellant is a matter of procedural irregularity that would not render the said originating processes incompetent. The Apex Court and this Court have stressed in a plethora of judicial pronouncements that a Court of law should be more concerned with doing substantial justice rather than allow itself to be tied by mere technicalities. The Appellant appeared in the Court below on one occasion and did not raise an objection in this regard. I am of the opinion that it is rather too late in the day for the Appellant to make heavy weather on this issue with the aim to compel this Honourable Court to lean toward doing technical justice rather than substantial justice." NIGERIA GERMAN CHEMICAL COMPANY PLC v. KRISORAL AND COMPANY LIMITED (2019) LPELR-47987(CA) Per UMAR, J.C.A. (Pp. 39-41, Paras. C-A)
FACTS:
"In respect of the Respondent's failure to affix the stamp and seal of the Nigeria Bar Association to its processes and the contention of the Appellant that this contravenes the provisions of Rule 10(3) of the Rules of Professional Conduct 2007, the attitude of the apex Court is encapsulated in the decision of the Court in the case of SARKIN YAKI vs. BAGUDU (2015) 64 NSCQR 93 AT 100 on the subject to the effect that the document so signed or filed shall be deemed not to have been properly signed or filed and that does not mean that the document is null and void or incompetent like the case of a process signed in the name of a corporation or association as in the case of OKAFOR vs. NWEKE (2007) 10 NWLR (PT. 1043) 521 SC. In the said case of SARKIN YAKI vs. BAGUDU (Supra) the apex Court per ONNOGHEN, JSC (As he then was but now CJN) is of the view that the process filed in breach of Rule 10 can be saved and its signing and filing regularized by affixing the seal and stamp since it is only a legal document improperly filed. In essence therefore, the position is therefore settled that the effect of the failure to affix the stamp/seal does not invalidate the process filed without the seal. It remains a mere irregularity that should not void the Respondent's processes at the Court below." AISHATU ABUBAKAR SURU v. AISHATU NAMAN GOMA(2018) LPELR-44650(CA) Per OHO, J.C.A. (Pp. 29-30, Paras. C-C)
FACTS:
"With respect to the second ground of the preliminary objection, which borders on the alleged breach of Rule 10 (1), (2) & (3) of the Rules of Professional Conduct, 2007, the decision of the Supreme Court in Senator Bello Sarakin Yaki (Rtd) & Anor v. Senator Atiku Abubakar Bagudu & Ors (2015) 10- 11 S. C. (pt. 1) 46; (2015) LPELR- 25721 (SC) was unequivocally succinct, to the effect that where a legal document does not have the approved stamp of the Nigerian Bar Association, on it, such a document is not void and invalid, but voidable, such that it can be regularized, by the erring legal practitioner being called upon by the Court, to affix the said stamp on the legal document in question.
"By all odds, the learned counsel for the Appellant did not affix the NBA Stamp to the Notice of Appeal. However, the Access Bank Teller in proof of payment for the NBA Stamp was attached to the Notice of Appeal (see page 150 of the Records), showing that the learned counsel had done the needful in respect of getting the NBA Stamp but that the same had not been issued to him. In those circumstances, I do not agree with the Respondent that the Notice of Appeal is irregular and did not properly initiate or activate the appeal.
"Lawyers who misuse their knowledge of the law and legal procedure to stultify the process of administration of justice are a disappointment and constitute a clog to the progress of the legal profession." Salihu v. Gana and Ors. (2014) LPELR-23069 (CA) 34-36. Idisi v. Ecodril Nig. Ltd. & Ors. [2016] 5 - 7 M. J. S. C [Pp. 18-19] Para. G