hbriefs-logo

EMMANUEL OKAFOR & ORS. v. AUGUSTINE NWEKE & ORS. (2007) – SC

Start

➥ CASE SUMMARY OF:
EMMANUEL OKAFOR & ORS. v. AUGUSTINE NWEKE & ORS. (2007) – SC

by PipAr Chima

➥ COURT:
Supreme Court – SC.27/2002

➥ RULING DELIVERED ON:
Friday, the 9th day of March, 2007

➥ AREA(S) OF LAW
Signing processes;

➥ NOTABLE DICTA
⦿ WHO IS A LEGAL PRACTITIONER
However, a legal practitioner is a person entitled according to the provision of section 24 of Legal Practitioners Act, 1990 to practice as a barrister or as barrister and solicitor either generally or for the purpose of any particular office or proceedings. – C. M. Chukwuma-eneh, J.S.C.

➥ LEAD JUDGEMENT DELIVERED BY:
W. S. N. Onnoghen, J.S.C.

➥ APPEARANCES
⦿ FOR THE APPELLANT
J.H.C. Okolo SAN.

⦿ FOR THE RESPONDENT
G.R.I. Egonu SAN.

Available:  Global Excellence Communications Limited & Ors v. Mr. Donald Duke (2007)

➥ CASE HISTORY
The Applicant filed a motion on notice for extension of time to file his notice of cross appeal, affidavit, and brief of argument. The said motion and accompany documents were signed by J.H.C. OKOLO SAN & CO. – a law firm.

The Respondent filed a counter-affidavit to oppose the said motion for incompetency as it was not signed by a legal practitioner.

➥ ISSUE(S) & RESOLUTION
[APPEAL: MOTION STRUCK OUT, WITH N1000 COST TO THE RESPONDENT]

I. Whether the notice of motion, notice of (CROSS) appeal and the applicants’ brief of argument for extension of time in this application are null and void OR whether J.H.C. OKOLO SAN & CO is a legal practitioner recognized by the law?

RULING:
A. Since both 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 notice filed on 19th, December 2005, notice of cross appeal and applicants brief of argument in support of the said motion all signed and issued by the firm known and called J .H.C. OKOLO SAN & CO. are incompetent in law particularly as the said firm of J.H.C. OKOLO SAN & CO. is not a registered legal practitioner.

B. The effect of the ruling is not to shut out the applicants but to put the house of the legal profession in order by sending the necessary and right message to members that the urge to do substantial justice does not include illegality or encouragement of the attitude of ‘anything goes.’ In conclusion I agree with the submission of learned senior advocate of Nigeria for the respondents that the processes filed in this application particularly the motion on notice filed on 19/12/05, the proposed notice of cross appeal and applicants’ brief of argument in support of the said motion on notice are incompetent in that they were not issued by a legal practitioner known to law and are consequently struck out.

Available:  Sani Lawali (Danchina) v The State (2019) - SC

➥ MISCELLANEOUS POINTS

➥ REFERENCED (STATUTE)
section 2(1), 24, of the Legal Practitioners Act, cap 207 of the Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 1990.

Available:  Dickson Moses v The State [2006] - SC

➥ REFERENCED (CASE)

➥ REFERENCED (OTHERS)

End

SHARE ON

Email
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Telegram
WhatsApp

Form has been successfully submitted.

Thanks.

This feature is in work, and currently unavailable.