Download PDF
<p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><b><u><span style="font-size: 13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">REPRESENTATION<o:p></o:p></span></u></b></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:13.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">MICHAEL KEKUNG for the claimant<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:13.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">HON. JACOB OTU ENYIA for the defendant.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:13.0pt"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center"><b><u><span style="font-size:13.0pt">JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p></span></u></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:13.0pt">This is an application from the defendants for an order striking out the claimants processes for lack of competence to wit; the said processes did not comply with the provisions of Rule 10(1) Rules of Professional Conduct of the Legal Practitioners Act 2007.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:13.0pt"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:13.0pt">The defendants in making this application filed a Notice of Preliminary Objection and a written address dated 23<sup>rd</sup> February 2016 with a six (6) paragraph affidavit dated 2<sup>nd</sup> March 2016. The defendants before making this application had applied to the court for and Certified True Copies of the claimants originating processes. And were furnished same which they perfunctorily exhibited and annexed to the affidavit as Exhibit P’F 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 being the claimants Compliant, Statement of Fact, the claimants two Witness Statement on oath, List of Witness and List of Documents correspondingly.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:13.0pt"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:13.0pt">The claimants in response filed a Counter Affidavit and a written address dated and filed on the 15<sup>th</sup> March 2016 wherein they maintained that their originating processes were duly stamped and sealed, with the seal of their Head of Chambers Okimasi Ojong, and signed by the hand of the deponent of the counsel or the claimant in this case, Michael Kekung.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;tab-stops:149.25pt"><span style="font-size:13.0pt"> <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:13.0pt">On 7<sup>th </sup>April 2016 the defendant moved their application and the claimant responded by adopting their process and adumbrated accordingly. The defendant asked for an adjournment to make his reply on point of law. The case was adjourned to 21<sup>st</sup> April 2016.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:13.0pt">On the 21<sup>st</sup> April 2016 the claimants were in court but the defendants sent in correspondence asking for an adjournment, the matter was further adjourned until today. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:13.0pt">The defendant argued their point of law via viva voce? and asked the court to rely on <b>YAKU Vs. GBAMDU [2015] LRN VOL. 249</b> and struck out the defendants processes citing held 9,2, and 25.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;tab-stops:123.0pt"><span style="font-size:13.0pt"> <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;tab-stops:261.0pt 304.5pt"><span style="font-size:13.0pt">The claimant counsel on point of law referred the court to the pronouncement of <b>NWALI</b> <b>NJUOTA JSC in the same case YAKU, (supra)</b> to the effect that their proceedings are voidable and could be regularized even on appeal. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"> <o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center"><b><u><span style="font-size:13.0pt">The Court’s Decision<o:p></o:p></span></u></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:13.0pt"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:13.0pt">Having carefully summarized the position of both sides, the arguments of opposing counsel and having carefully reviewed all the authorities cited, read through all the relevant processes and digested the contention of the parties and their written submission are herewith incorporated in this ruling and specific mention would be made to them where the need arises. The issue for determination in this suit to my mind is whether there is any merit to the defendant’s application. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:13.0pt"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:13.0pt">On the date this matter was first moved this court took a cursory look through the courts file and found that the originating processes in the court’s file had indeed been stamped.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:13.0pt"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:13.0pt">Now Section 10(1) of the Rules of Professional Conduct of the Legal Practitioners Act 2007 provides;-<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:13.0pt"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:13.0pt">(1) A lawyer acting in his capacity as a legal practitioner, legal officer or adviser of any Government department or ministry or any corporation, shall not sign or file a legal document unless there is affixed on any such document a seal and stamp approved by the Nigerian Bar Association.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:13.0pt"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:13.0pt">Sub (2) goes on to define Legal document to include inter alia pleadings filed in Court.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:13.0pt">And in Section 10(3) the rules provide that:-<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:13.0pt"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:13.0pt">(3) If, without complying with the requirements of this rule, a lawyer signs or files any legal documents as defined in sub-rule (2) of this rule, and in any of the capacities mentioned in sub-rule (1), the document so signed or filed shall be deemed not to have been properly signed or filed. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:13.0pt"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:13.0pt">The position of the law is as was stated in the case of <b><span style="color:red">ALL PROGRESSIVE CONGRESS (APC) V. GENERAL BELLO SARKIN YAKI (UNREP) delivered on October 27, 2015 in Appeal No: SC/722/15 <o:p></o:p></span></b></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><b><span style="font-size:13.0pt">On whether the documents filed by the Defence Counsel is incompetent without a seal or stamp of the NBA. <o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:13.0pt">Court held that “if without complying with the mandatory provision of <b>Rule 10(1)</b> Rules of Professional Conduct, 2007 a lawyer acting in his capacity as a Legal Practitioner or legal adviser of any Government department or Ministry or any Corporation, signs or files a legal document without a seal or stamp of the Nigerian Bar Association, The document so signed or filed shall be deemed not to have been properly filed or served.”<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:13.0pt">In the instant case, the court held that the signing and filing of the legal document by a lawyer shall be incompetent if the NBA stamp is not affixed to it.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:13.0pt"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:13.0pt">This court ruled in the cases of <b><span style="color:red">NICN/UY/04/2015 INCORPORATED TRUSTEES OF THE ASSOCIATION FOR THE WELFARE OF RETIRED LOCAL GOVERNMENT STAFF, AKWA IBOM STATE. Vs. HON. COMMISSIONER FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT & 3 Ors </span></b>delivered on 16<sup>th</sup> February 2016 and <b><span style="color:red">NICN/AK/22/2015 CHIBUZOR ONYE-NSO Vs. FIRST MAXIMUM POINT INDUSTRIES LIMITED</span></b><span style="color:red"> </span>delivered on the 9<sup>th</sup> February 2016, considered that the National Industrial Court is not a court cut out for highly technical preserves especially as the court had taken judicial notice of the fact that many legal practitioners were yet to obtain the said stamp for sealing in line with the rules.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:13.0pt"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:13.0pt">This position stems from the practice direction notification issued by the President of this Court that evidence of Nigeria Bar Associations payment should be present in lieu of the stamp and seal, thus the court has variously held for the time being at least the absence of a stamp and seal is voidable. The court went on in <b><span style="color:red">INCORPORATED TRUSTEES OF THE ASSOCIATION FOR THE WELFARE OF RETIRED LOCAL GOVERNMENT STAFF, AKWA IBOM STATE. Vs. HON. COMMISSIONER FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT & 3 Ors </span></b>to hold that “the document could be saved and its signing and filing regularized by affixing the approved seal and stamp on it. That failure to affix the stamp does not render the process incompetent but irregular or voidable”.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:13.0pt">The court went on to extend time within which the party must affix the said stamp and seal accordingly.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:13.0pt"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:13.0pt">In the processes before the court having noted that the certified processes do not bear the stamp clearly visible on the process found in the court’s file creates a suspicion as to whether or not the stamp was surreptitiously affixed after the certification was done. The fact that this court has held that the affixing of the stamp is voidable does not mean that the Counsel can stroll into the court and ask for the court’s file and affix his seal without the court knowing. An act or document being voidable means, that it is “not automatically void, it is only an irregularity which may be waived. It is not to be avoided unless something is done to avoid it. <b><span style="color:red">OGUNLADE Vs. FMB NIG. LTD. [2006] LPELR 7722 CA</span></b><span style="color:red"> </span>per Fabiyi JCA (as he then was) (Pp. 12-13 para G-A).<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:13.0pt"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:13.0pt">In the instant case the defendant rather than waiving or avoiding the irregularity joined issued on it by raising a preliminary objection.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:13.0pt"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:13.0pt">A closer perusal of the certified documents reveal the presence of the letter ”R” in the top right hand corner of the front page. This indicates that the copy certified was the Registry copy and not the copy in the court’s file. Notwithstanding this possible explanation the administration of this court has been notified of the incident for a proper investigation to be conducted. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:13.0pt"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:13.0pt">Be that as it may be, the claimant’s reaction to the process shows that the claimant fixed a stamp to their process but the stamp was that of the head of chambers, bearing the name of the head of the claimants counsels chambers. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:13.0pt"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:13.0pt">The whole concept of the stamp of seal as explained by the Nigerian Bar Association was to ensure that persons filing processes and taking up case were legitimate legal practitioners called to Nigeria Bar and licensed as Barrister and Solicitors of the Supreme Court of Nigeria. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:13.0pt"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:13.0pt">To now argue as the claimant counsel is arguing that it is permissible for a junior counsel to sign a process and affix the stamp of his principal would defeat the entire process. The judiciary had accepted the responsibility of working with the NBA to ensure that only genuine professionals are allowed to present themselves in court as Legal Practitioners and as such the courts are enjoined to uphold the use of the stamp and seal for every legal practitioner. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:13.0pt"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:13.0pt">To allow the claimant counsel affix his stamp at this stage would not cure the defect, I find.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:13.0pt"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:13.0pt">For all the above reasons the preliminary objection of the defendant has merit and is upheld, the claimants originating process is hereby struck out.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:13.0pt"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:13.0pt">Judgement is hereby entered.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:13.0pt"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:13.0pt"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center"><span style="font-size:13.0pt">…………………………………………….<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center"><span style="font-size:13.0pt">Hon. Justice E. N. Agbakoba<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center"><span style="font-size:13.0pt">Presiding Judge Calabar Division<o:p></o:p></span></p>