Lawyers play a very vital role in the Nigerian Creative Industry and Business World. This training aims to increase and develop the competence of lawyers by providing adequate knowledge to further understand the needs of clients in the entertainment, sports, creative and financial business industries.

Training Overview

The scheduled modules for the training are directed at how lawyers can best take advantage of new areas of law including –

• Sports Law

• Mediation

• Entertainment Law

• Finance for Lawyers

• Forensic Document Examination; and

• Intellectual Property Law.

Training Information –

Date – 26th and 27th April, 2018

Venue – LCCI Conference & Exhibition Centre, Nurudeen Olowopopo Drive, Alausa, Ikeja, Lagos

Time :- 9am – 5pm Daily

Registration Details

Fee per delegate:

N25,000 – Early Bird (Ends 31st March, 2018)

N30,000 – Regular

Account Details –

Lawlexis International Limited

Fidelity Bank

4011176564

Note that all Payment confirmation and Delegate Information should be sent to lawlexisinternational@gmail.com. For contact and sponsorship details, Please contact Lawlexis on 09095635314; 08055424566

Lawyers are liars!” This represents the
view of the larger population of society about lawyers. A view drawn from the conclusion
that a lawyer’s duty is to misrepresent facts to suit his client for whom he
intends to win at all costs. The position of a defence counsel in criminal
proceeding is even the more precarious and is sometimes even seen as
condemnable. Many wonder why an Accused person caught in the act of committing
a crime should spend years on trial with the aim of “proving” that he
committed the crime he was caught committing. Clearly, to these people, it
takes a man without conscience or a sense of morality to be a lawyer to a “guilty
man”. Despite these widely held views, a close inspection of a lawyer’s duty
and calling vis-à-vis the rules regulating his professional conduct, makes it
apparent that such views are misplaced and very far from serving the true
object of justice.

As a preliminary question, one may ask; under law, who
is a guilty man? This question is succinctly answered by our most essential
body of law: our constitution. Section
36 (5) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (As Amended)
Every person charged with a criminal offence is presumed innocent until proven
to be guilty! In other words, under law, no man is guilty until he is proven to
be guilty! This is the first rule upon which a legal practitioner is called to
represent an Accused most would regard as guilty. A legal practitioner never
represents a guilty man! He only represents an innocent man who may or may not
be proven guilty! Whether a person was caught in the act may only lend credence
to the ease with which his guilt will be proven, it does not in itself
conclusively establish guilt. If this doesn’t make sense, then does it make
sense that four young boys were gruesomely murdered by an angry mob who
believed beyond doubt that they were caught in the act of crime, only to later
find out they were innocent? Indeed, it only makes sense for this presumption
of innocence to continue to free several guilty men than for the application of
the opposite argument to lead to the condemnation of an innocent man.

Therefore, there is no guilty man;
only a man whom the law is trying to establish his guilt. In the process of
proving his guilt it would be greatly unfair that Prosecution knows the law,
the Judge knows the law, but the person to whom it is sought to be applied does
not! It would be too much injustice to proceed from a temple of justice. To
this end, the innocent man whose guilt the law seeks to establish, becomes
entitled to get a person who also knows the law. A lawyer!

However, what if the lawyer
personally knows the Accused person is guilty? He is caught in between his job
and his sense of morality. At this stage the conflict resolution for a properly
trained lawyer is simple: He must be a lawyer! Not a lawyer that lies but a
lawyer that is professional in conduct and guided by the Rules of his
profession! Now let us look at what the Rules tell a lawyer to do in such
situation.

The Rules of
Professional Conduct for Legal Practitioners 2007 states under Rules 24. (1):

“It is the duty of a lawyer to accept
any briefs in the Court in which he professes to practice provided the proper
professional fee is offered unless there are special circumstances which
justify his refusal.”

In interpreting this provision of the
Rules, the opinion of Obi Okoye, a learned author on the subject of
Professional Ethics and whose text is recommended material at the Nigerian Law School,
is incisive and he says:

” a legal practitioner is
obliged to accept the brief from the client….(he) is not only bound to accept
the brief, he should put his best in discharging his responsibilities towards
the cause. The rationale behind this rule is that legal practitioners should
not pick and choose briefs they should handle in court. As officers of the
court, they are not at liberty to select the cases to appear in since the
primary duty of a legal practitioner appearing in a case in court is to assist
the court in arriving at a just decision.

The fact that a
case is unpopular or that a client has a very bad criminal record or public
record or that the legal practitioner believes that the accused person is
guilty, may not justify his refusal to accept the client’s case.        (This) …cab rank rule is mostly
applied in criminal cases to prevent accused persons from being denied legal
representation by lawyers owing to their bad record… “

It
is highly unprofessional therefore for a legal practitioner to reject a
client’s case, and more particularly in a criminal trial, just because he
believes the client is guilty. A lawyer’s calling is to render service to all.
As a Medical Doctor should treat a patient before him irrespective of whether
he caused his sickness or is a robber, a lawyer must render legal service to
all before him and put his personal sentiments away when he acts professionally.
 

While
a legal practitioner is not to reject the brief of a “guilty man” on the
grounds that he knows he is guilty, this should not be mistaken to mean that he
has been placed with the burden of perverting the cause of justice. A legal
practitioner for an Accused ensures a fair trial and in doing so has a duty to
the court; the temple of justice before whom he appears as minister. He should
only do what is honourably accepted in professional regards.

The
above submissions were capture by the Supreme Court in UDOFIA V. THE STATE (1988) LPELR-3305(SC) where the court Per Oputa, J.S.C held that:

“Every person accused of crime has a
right to a fair trial, including persons whose conduct, reputation, or alleged
violations may be the subject of public unpopularity or clamour. This places a
duty of service on the legal profession and, where particular employment is
declined the refusal of the brief or to undertake a defence may not be
justified merely on account of belief in the guilt of the accused, or
repugnance towards him or to the crime or offence charged… The following appear
in bold relief: – 1. Every person accused of crime has a right to a fair trial.
2. Persons whose crimes are so heinous that they constitute a shock to the
accepted norms of behaviour are also entitled to a fair trial. 3. A legal
practitioner should not refuse to defend such people. 4. When a legal
practitioner does accept such brief, and in fact any brief, he should urge any
and everything that can be honourably urged in favour of the accused. 5. He
should collect the facts, weigh them and put them across to the Court courageously
and fearlessly. This is the advocate’s noble duty to render efficient, honest
and conscientious service; to put across his own side of the case with all the
force at his command, so that the trial Judge would be able to consider both
sides and decide where the justice of the case lies. 6. It is the paramount
duty of a defence counsel to defend the accused – which means to ensure that an
accused person is never left unrepresented at any stage of the trial. If
counsel for the defence has obviously and scandalously not discharged his duty
to the accused he is defending, I do not know how one can call the trial
fair.”

The
above quote of the apex court on the issue, puts this discussion in proper
perspective and answers the subject of this write-up beyond peradventure.
However, to further consolidate the point (and I do urge you follow this point
through) , I further refer to the quote of One of the greatest proponents of
legal ethics and advocacy, Lord Denning
MR in the case of Rondel v. Worsley
(1967) I QB 443 which was cited with approval by the Court of Appeal in Free Ent (Nig) Ltd v G.T.O.S.A (1998) 1
NWLR (Pt. 532) Pg 1 @ 21-2 Paras. E – C, per Per Onalaja JCA thus:

By the ethics of this profession, the
credo of which was clearly stated in Rondel v. Worsley (1967) I QB 443 wherein
LORD DENNING MR, the greatest MASTER of THE ROLLS OF ENGLAND in this century
observed as follows: – “As an advocate, he is a Minister of Justice
equally with the Judge. He has a monopoly of audience in the higher courts. No
one save he can address the JUDGE, unless it be a litigant in person. This
carries with it a corresponding responsibility. He must accept that brief and
do all he honourably can on behalf of his client. I say “all he honourably
can” because his duty is not only to his client. He has a duty to the
court which is paramount. It is a mistake to suppose that he is the mouth piece
of his client to say what he wants or his tool to do what he directs. He is
none of these things. He owes allegiance to a higher cause. It is the cause of
truth and justice. He must not consciously mis-state the facts. He must not
knowingly conceal the truth. He must not unjustly make a charge of fraud, that
is, without evidence to support it. He must produce all the relevant
authorities even those that are against him. He must see that his client
discloses, if ordered, the relevant documents, even those that are fatal to his
case. He must disregard the most specific instructions of his client if they
conflict with his duty to the court. The code which requires a barrister to do
all this is not a code of law. It is a code of honour. If he breaks it, he is
offending against the rules of profession and is subject to its discipline. But
he cannot be sued in a court of law. Such being his duty to the court the
barrister must be able to do it fearlessly. He has time and time again to
choose between his duty to his client and his duty to the court. This is a
conflict often difficult to resolve and he should not be under pressure to
decide wrongly if a barrister is to be able to do his duty fearlessly and
independently, he must not be subject to the threat of an action for negligence.”

The above decision has been followed
and adopted in T. Oseni v. Brossettee Nig. Ltd. (1981) Jan/March CCRCJ 310-320, The
Shell Petroleum Development Company of Nig, Ltd v. Chief George Uzoaru & 3
Ors (For themselves and as representing the UMUNNAKA UKWU Village of OGUTA)
(1994) 9 NWLR (Pt. 366) page 51, OPUTA,J.S.C.’s BOOK OUR TEMPLE OF JUSTICE.                           

These past months, I have noted with
concern that some lawyers have been intimidated by the media, and even booed at
public fora for defending some persons in the “corrupt political class”. Such
conduct by the members of the public is sheer ignorance and a betrayal of
proper understanding of the calling of a lawyer’s profession. A lawyer as a
professional does not and should not act on the sentiments of the public in the
execution of his duties but should apply the law and ensure its application is
proper towards his client in every case he conducts while upholding his most
paramount duty to the cause of justice. A lawyer is not a liar, He only ensures
the other party properly elicits the truth!

IN
CONCLUSION

While a lawyer can professionally, and is in
fact encouraged to, represent a guilty man, He need not be a liar covering up or
misrepresenting facts to do so. Representing a guilty man is not unprofessional
but misrepresenting facts to the court is. Therefore, as response to the “lawyers
are liars” rhetoric, I adopt the position of Honorable Justice Belgore JCA (As he then was) in P.I.P.C.S. Ltd v. Vlachos (2008) 4 NWLR
(Pt. 1076) 1 at P. 17, when he said

“Counsel must be conscientious in the
performance of their duties. They owe it a duty to assist the court to arrive
at a just decision and they must not set out to confuse the court in order to
satisfy their clients for a paltry sum. Unless lawyers perform their duties by
the dictate of their calling and conscience, the public (layman’s) perception
of lawyers as liars will never change.
I must state, and with all emphasis, that lawyers are not liars, but honourable
gentlemen who are trained to assist litigants and the court. Their first duty
is to the court as ministers in the temple of justice.”

OLIVER
OMOREDIA ESQ.

ASSOCIATE

OBIAGWU
& OBIAGWU LLP

08100193573,
oliveromoredia@yahoo.com

It is undisputed that
Nigeria is the largest economy in sub-Saharan Africa. Regarded for its oil
producing clout, the country is blessed with human, capital as well as natural
resources. However, Nigeria, like most emerging economies, has suffered the
deleterious effect of climate change. The need for Nigeria to keep to its
nationally determined contributions and attain the almost idyll temperature
levels of 1.5C cannot be overemphasized.

At the start of the climate
negotiations in Bonn in November 2015, countries most vulnerable to climate
impacts (developing countries) took the political initiative by challenging
USA, China and Europe to raise their ambitions and set a long-term temperature
goal of 1.5 degrees instead of 2 degrees. This evinces without a doubt that
developing countries need the compliance with the commitments of 1.5C more than
any other nations, and how better can any government do that, than ensure its
own emissions do not exceed the 1.5C limit. In fact, Thoriq Ibrahim,
Environment and Energy Minister of the Maldives realizing the urgency of the
situation (even as at 2015) enthused “A long-term temperature goal of well
below 1.5C must be reflected in the Paris agreement, along with an indicative
pathway for achieving it, including urgent peaking and deep mid-century
emissions reductions”

The Paris agreement is,
indeed, daunting, yet realistic. While it maintains a legally binding
obligation for state parties to reduce their emissions to below 2C, it then
places an altruistic burden on states to further pursue the 1.5C obligation.
Nigeria, a party to the Paris agreement, and one of the countries championing
climate action in Africa, in its INDC of 11th November, 2015 pledged to reduce
emissions by 20% unconditionally and 45% conditionally, compared to
business-as-usual levels, by 2030. This is the first reason why the country
must keep its 1.5C commitments- the rule of ‘pacta sunt servanda’ (contained in
Article 26 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties). It enjoins state
parties to any treaty or agreement to keep them in good faith. Apart from this,
other reasons include the need to preserve the little that is left of our
biodiversity, the environmental consequences, the economic effects and of
course the alarming rate of health hazards that especially take their toll on
low income communities, women and children.

Permit me to be audacious
and say that Nigeria’s economic and agricultural future is linked largely with
its ability to keep temperature within its sphere below 1.5 degrees above
pre-industrial levels. So, beyond good faith and all I have highlighted above,
I will speak further on agriculture and economy.

Agriculture is one of the
most important sectors of Nigeria’s life, and it is one of the most critical
ones affected by the impacts of climate change as it is largely dependent on
sunlight, rainfall, temperature and humidity. There can be no successful food
production if these factors are not available both in quantity and quality.
Invariably, their availability affects the quantity, quality and type of food
production as well as production-related income. Thus food availability,
accessibility, utilization and systems stability are equally affected because
of the dynamic interaction between bio-geophysical and human environments.
Also, farming seasons, storage and production are affected due to uncertainty
in weather conditions.

Notable is the fact that the
sector remains the main source of livelihood for most rural communities in Nigeria,
thus a failure of the sector is disastrous as it could lead to grave levels of
hunger and poverty. It is also a major industry for the production of raw
materials for the textile and manufacturing industry as well as a source of
foreign exchange. A recent report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC) showed that climate change threatens to undermine the progress
that has been achieved to date, especially in the agricultural sector. There is
also the effect of global warming on health of livestock, milk production and
spread of diseases. For instance, the availability and price of feed grain and
pasture and forage crop yields is affected.

Speaking for the economy,
according to a 2009 DFID study if no action is taken, between 2-11% of Nigeria’s
GDP could be lost by 2020. This, to me, serves enough motivation for the
country to keep to its 1.5C commitment. As a fallout of my last point, the part
of foreign exchange recouped from agriculture is ailing and is just one sector
of the economy crumbling under the tough hands of global warming.

In order to achieve this
goal though, there are things Nigeria must necessarily put in place. First, we
must get accurate data and readings on the current emission levels in the
country, because was it not Carl Sagan that said that to know the present, you
must understand the past. And of course, if we have no idea where we are, it is
herculean trying to get somewhere else. We need to work on our technology
systems and reporting accuracy, so as to get the right data to forge ahead. The
Energy Commission research centres must come alive again

Also, we need to develop
legislations that have binding force in ensuring reduction of fossil fuel
activity and increment of climate-friendly activity. Legislations focusing on
environmental concerns in Nigeria like the NESREA (National Environmental
Standards Regulation Agency) Act do not have the requisite force for
consequence management. The NOSDRA (National Oil Spill Detection Regulation)
Act has also been a toothless bulldog against the big polluters. For us to
achieve 1.5C, we must give our laws teeth.

Third, on this issue is the
much touted point that Nigeria has to diversify its economy, relieving the
almost entire dependence of the economy on a non-renewable fossil fuel, with
grave climatic impacts. Countries like Norway that have oil in commercial
quantity are quickly moving towards sustainable energy, wind farms, solar
stations and waste to energy plants are popping up everywhere replacing the all
so revered oil and building a futuristic and sustainable economy. Nigeria has
to borrow this leaf, and take a step back from the hallowed crucibles of
petroleum, and use the revenue gained from the oil industry to pour back into
the huge capitalization required for climate friendly energy production, and
slowly ebb away from the fossil fuel dependence.

Caleb Adebayo

Associate at Wole Olanipekun
& Co.,

Source: The
Sun

Choosing proper leaders requires varied
processes. Naturally, time remains bookmarked with countless approaches but one
is more ubiquitous than the rest today; the democratic approach. The larger sum
of social groups point to the very best amongst them, then pick whoever best
embodies their interests at the time.

Election cycles have become so
interwoven with the fabric of society it is hardly uncommon to see candidates
peddling one form of rhetoric or the other. A question that often gets glossed
over at such times is this; do people always get the leaders they want
alongside the leaders they need?

Tragically, electing leaders has manically become a mere
popularity contest over the years. Thankfully there are exceptions. Instances
exist where the people have selected the perfect fit in terms of their needs.
This is because they’ve grasped how to answer the aforementioned question
comprehensively.

Enter the Nigerian Bar Association, NBA, a body respected and
revered internationally, recognized for numerous milestones as well as its
commitment to the highest levels of learning and law-making.  With another
election looming, the necessity of going in the proper direction as a body and
consequent implications on the entire nation cannot be lost on its learned members.
Picking a president is serious business, not the stuff of afterthoughts.

The job description for such an esteemed position would
ordinarily seem daunting. Then again, the best men have tackled such challenges
for the greater good with ease. This is why Paul Usoro, SAN, glows with such
intensity that it is uncanny when taking the measure of the man against the
vacancy of the office.

Another poser to tackle would be; why him and not the rest? At
this point, the average learned colleague would break out a knowing smile
running down a mental checklist of his qualifications and suitability for the
position.

His ambition is recognized across the field and the nation at
large but not in the cutthroat manner that so often leads to the downfall of
many men. Random conversations where his name is brought up, lead to
conclusions that he is different based on empirical points and a track record
of immensely impressive competence.

From his near meteoric rise at the
University of Ife (now Obafemi Awolowo University) where he was the one of the
youngest ever Presidents of the Law Society, to becoming the Head of Litigation
at Sani Mohammed Kuso & Co and even right up to the point of beginning his
own practice, his life has been devoted to the Law itself. Subsequent graduate executive
courses at Harvard in Boston and INSEAD in France, amongst others, have armed
him with top-of-the-line competencies. It is easy to see why Mr. Usoro’s career
has glittered so much so glass ceilings seem like a myth where he is concerned.

A renowned litigator who has been involved in at least 321
matters pending in courts till date, he is renowned for his remarkable
connection to people from all works of life, he has become endeared to many.
His commitment to the NBA has been fleshed out in several ways be it while
serving on its National Executive Committee to becoming the first ever Chairman
of the Communications Committee. He has sponsored several NBA functions,
presented several superb papers at these functions all while ensuring that his
firm Paul Usoro& Co, PUC, keeps its commitments to the NBA.

For the younger learned colleague, his commitment to
inclusivity, mentorship and unhindered succession for them remains undisputed.
Known for a sentimental attachment to his own days as a young lawyer, he’s been
welded to the idea of ensuring that the welfare of the new hires at his firm,
is not just remunerated robustly but are prodded on along the path of
sustainable growth in such a way they become success stories of bottom-to-top
development at the firm.

For the older learned colleague, his work within the NBA and in
legal circles speaks for itself. Nonetheless, his famed thirst for knowledge
and learning is front and center. Regardless of whatever age you are as a
lawyer, Mr. Usoro’s passion to proliferate his experience and expertise has
been evident. Several papers he has presented including “E-Legal and Prospects of Litigation in Nigeria”, “Licensing Procedures under Communications Act 2003” as well
as “Emerging Nigerian Communications
Industry and the Role of Lawyers” have become blueprints referred
to by all and sundry over the years.

He has drafted the Communications
Act of 2003 alongside several other pieces of legislation including the Mobile
Number Portability Regulations of 2014, Coastal and Inland Shipping Cabotage
(Bareboat Registration) Regulations of 2005, Council for the Regulation of
Freight Forwarding in Nigeria Act of 2007, to name just a few. He’s currently
involved in the ongoing draft for a law establishing Liability Regimes for Land
Transport in Nigeria.  Clearly, he has not just devoted himself to
fine-tuning the laws of the land in the past but continues to do so even today.

His corporate and State links rank
him at the zenith of the law profession with legendary cases including the
controversial Bank Verification Number, BVN, tussle between 18 commercial banks
and the Central Bank, the Supreme Court oil well dispute that affected Akwa
Ibom, Rivers and Cross Rivers states, several pre-election lawsuits, the Power
Holding Company of Nigeria vs the Lagos State Government and even the case
where he ensured a multinational oil servicing company got its fair share of
judgement sums totalling millions of Dollars.

Furthermore, sitting on the boards of blue-chip companies as
varied as PZ Cussons PLC, Airtel Networks Limited, Access Bank and even Nigeria
Bulk Electricity Trading PLC on the request of former President, Dr. Goodluck
Jonathan amongst others, the master strategist Mr. Usoro is well respected for
his immense business acumen and transactional prowess.

His work with social responsibility from sponsoring several
sporting events for lawyers to doing pro bono work alongside a genuine interest
in public service has shown his ability to not just be an exemplary
professional but also fantastic human being. Little wonder, his decision to
throw his hat into the ring for the NBA Presidency has brought forth so much
joy from all and sundry.

Reeling out achievements is one thing, helping those who need a
specialized skillset remains another altogether. With the NBA presidency vote
looming, it is quite clear how iconic Paul Usoro’s footprints are and precisely
where they should lead.

Source – www.barfirst360.com

Locus
classicus is the legal right or stand a person has to prosecute or be a witness
in a matter.

Cases that supports
these are: Rondel v Worsley(House of Lords)
Lord Reid, Lord  Morris of borth -Y- Gest.

Lord Pearce

Lord Upjohn

Lord Pearson. Nov. 22,1967.

Summary
-In May 1959, the appellant was tried on charges of causing bodily harm to one
M with intent to do so. He pleaded that the acts (which he did not deny) were
justified. His defence was undertaken on a dock brief by the respondent a
barrister- at- law but he was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment and his
application for leave to appeal which included complaints against his counsel
was refused.
Nearly six years later in February 1965, he issued a writ claiming damages for
professional negligence against his Counsel,followed by a statement of claim
drawn by himself which was in all respects defective and which the master
ordered to be struck out . The appellant appealed from that order to a Judge in
chambers who after hearing argument on behalf of the Official Solicitor as
amicus curiae on the question “whether an action for negligence could lie
against a barrister and after giving the appellant full opportunity to amend
his Statement of Claim ,dismissed the action ,expressing the opinion that ,for
reasons of public policy ,an advocate whether Barrister or Solicitor was immune
from actions for negligence in and about the conduct of a client’s case in
court.

On
appeal:
 Held, dismissing the appeal that a Barrister was immune from an action
for negligence at the suit of a client in respect of his conduct and management
of a case in court and the preliminary work connected therewith such as the
drawing of pleadings . That immunity was not based on the absence of contract
between barrister and client but on public policy and long usage in that (a)
the administration of justice required that a barrister should be able to carry
out his duty to the court fearlessly and independently;
(b) actions for negligence against barristers 1ould make the retrying of the
original actions inevitable and so prolong litigation, contrary to the public
interest; and

(c)
a barrister was obliged to accept any client, however difficult who sought his
services..

LORD
REID: Had this to say :My Lords,in 1959 the appellant was charged at the
central criminal court with causing grievous bodily harm to one Manning. He was
not given legal aid but after the case had proceeded for sometimes, he was
informed  that he could have a “dock brief “. He chose the
respondent His counsel and in accordance with his duty as a barrister ,the
respondent agreed to act for him. During an adjournment he gave to the
respondent his account of the affair. The respondent then cross- examined the
Crown witnesses and called the appellant and another witness. The appellant was
convicted and it is plain that he had no real defence but he was much aggrieved
by evidence that he had used a knife;he wanted to establish that he had
inflicted Manning’s injuries with his hands alone or by biting and apparently,
the respondent did not ask all the questions or lead all the evidence he had
suggested.
In February 1965,the appellant raised the present action -His original
statement of clam ,apparently prepared by himself was barely intelligible. In
April,the respondent sought an order that the statement of claim be struck out
as disclosing no cause of action and also as being irregular. In May,the master
ordered that the statement of claim be struck out and the action dismissed. The
appellant appealed and Browne J. asked the official Solicitor to instruct
Counsel to act as amicus curiae.

In
November 1965,Lawton J. heard argument for five days on the question whether
the statement of claim disclosed any cause of action and held that it did not
because a barrister cannot be sued by his client for negligence or lack of
skill in presenting his client’s case in court. I shall not deal with attempts
to improve the statement of claim by amendment. And I shall not deal with the
facts beyond saying that possibly a case could be made out to the effect that
the respondent made some error of judgment -I am not in a position to express
an opinion about that -but there is nothing in the facts before us to indicate
any professional negligence or lack of skill on his part, and nothing to
indicate that the appellant would have been any better off if the respondent
had acted differently.

Leave
to appeal was given and the Court of Appeal (Lord Denning M.R and Danckwerts
& Salmon L.J J) on Oct 20,1966 dismissed the appeal. Salmon L.J said ,I
think justly that the appellant’s claim was clearly as devoid of merit as it
was of any prospect of success, but in view of the importance of the question
of law involved this House gave leave to the appellant to appeal.

The argument before your Lordships has been
directed to the general question of barristers’ liability and has ranged
widely. For the appellant it was said that all other professional men, including
Solicitors are liable to be sued for damages if loss is caused to their clients
by their lack of professional skill or by their failure to exercise due care,
so why should not barristers be under the same liability. For the respondent it
has been shown that for at least two hundred years no judge or text writer has
questioned the fact that barristers cannot be so sued and a variety of reasons
have been adduced why the present position should continue.

In Nigeria, one of the means by which a
person can get a proper title to land is by obtaining Governor’s
consent in respect of the land. The Land Use Act of 1978 is the statute which
regulates land and any transaction relating to it in Nigeria.

 Section 22 of the Act provides that “it shall
not be lawful for the holder of a statutory right of occupancy granted by the
Governor to alienate his right of occupancy or any part thereof by assignment,
mortgage, transfer of possession, sublease or otherwise howsoever without
the earlier consent of the Governor first obtained. Usually, it is
the duty of the holder of the right of occupancy to get the consent,
but in practice this is left to the buyer. In Lagos, Nigeria, the country’s
commercial nerve center, this practice has been embraced over the
years. A burden usually conveniently passed to the buyer.

Obtaining Governor’s consent is a way of
complying with the provisions of the statute and a way of protecting
the legitimacy of the purchaser’s title to the land. Failure
to get this consent can make the transfer of interest in
the land null and void.

In conclusion, when the Governor’s consent is
duly obtained by the seller after a transaction, it will serve two main
purposes; as evidence of ownership, and there will also be security of his
title.

What are your thoughts on the relevance of
Title and the points highlighted?

If you have any questions, use the comment
section, get in touch via +2347014979879 or hightowerlawyers@gmail.com. You
will be glad you did.

Hightower Solicitors

The Senate on Thursday 15^th of
March, 2018 passed the National Transport Commission Bill. After a clause by
clause consideration of the Bill, the bill was finally read the third time and
passed.

The National Transport Commission was
sponsored for the first time in 2008 but could not be passed till the end of
the assembly due to the complex nature of the bill.

The current version of the National Transport
Commission Bill was sponsored by Senator Andy Uba and was read for the second
time on the floor of the Senate on the 7^thof October, 2015 after
which the Senate referred the Bill to the Joint Senate Committee of Land
Transport, Marine Transport and Aviation Transport ably chaired by Distinguished
Senator Gbenga Ashafa representing Lagos East Senatorial District.

The Chairman of the Joint Senate Committee,
Senator Gbenga Ashafa and other members held interactive sessions with
stakeholders in the Transport Industry to evaluate the bill including a public
hearing to enable them diligently handle the bill before same was presented to
the Senate for third reading.

Commenting on the passage of the bill by the
Senate, Ashafa expressed his excitement over the passage of the Bill having
worked assiduously with other members of the committee and stake holders to
ensure that the best possible version of the bill is passed into law. 

 Ashafa in his comments said “the National
Transport Commission when signed into law is capable of setting the transport
sector on the path of positive development. With this bill, we would
successfully create a multi-modal transport sector economic and safety
oversight regulator for the transport sector. This is very good for business as
it brings standard and structure to the transport sector while also increasing
the revenue of Government.”

He stated further that, “The Joint Senate
Committee worked with the understanding that this is one of the priority
Economic Bills of the 8^th Senate and therefore ensured that all
imputes from stake holders were considered and the best possible version of the
bill was presented to the Senate.”

Ashafa concluded by expressing appreciation
to the Senate President, Senator Abubakar Bukola Saraki for his commitment to
prioritizing bills that would have great impact on the economy.

The National Transport Commission Bill when
signed into law will create a multi-modal transport sector economic and safety
oversight commission, that will drive the National Transport Policy.

Some legal practitioners have opined that the decision Supreme Court in SC/175/2005-Heritage Bank Ltd v. Bentworth Finance (Nigeria) Limited delivered on the 23rd of February 2018 is clear deviation and implicit overruling of its earlier position on the implication of a court process signed by a law firm. Most of the commentators have argued that the position of the law as established through a long line of cases interpreting section 2 and Section 24 of the Legal Practitioners Act, is that a court process signed other than by a legal practitioner whose name appears on the Roll of legal practitioners registered with the Supreme Court, is a nullity.

THE POSITION OF LAW THROUGH THE CASES: IMPLICATION OF VIOLATION OF SECTION 2 AND 24 OF THE LEGAL PRACTITIONERS ACT

Prior to the decision of the apex court in the Heritage Bank Case (Supra) there have been a plethora of decided cases on the implication of signing court processes by a law firm. The most popular Nigerian case on this issue being the case  Okafor V. Nweke (2007) 10 NWLR Pt 1043 at 521 where the  Applicants filed a motion before Supreme Court praying inter alia for; An order for extension of time within which to apply for Leave to (Cross) Appeal; Leave to (Cross) Appeal; Extension of time within which to file the applicants Notice and Grounds in the said (Cross) Appeal; and An order deeming the said Notice and Grounds of Appeal properly filed and served.

The Applicant’s motion seeking the above orders was signed by “J.H.C. Okolo, SAN & Co” as was the Notice of Cross Appeal and the brief of argument in support of the motion. The Respondents filed a Counter Affidavit in opposition to the application and in its brief of argument raised the issue “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.”

The Learned Senior Advocate (Counsel to the Respondents) referred the Supreme Court to Section 74(1) of the Evidence Act, Cap 112, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 1990 and submitted that by virtue of that provision the Court was enjoined to take judicial notice of all legal practitioners authorized by law to appear or act before it and further submitted that “J.H.C. Okolo SAN & Co” was not a legal practitioner authorized by law to appear or act before the Supreme Court of Nigeria.

In support of his argument the Learned Senior Counsel referring to and relying on Sections 2(1) and 24 of the Legal Practitioners Act, cap 207, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 1990, submitted that the law firm, “J.H.C. Okolo SAN & Co” not being a person whose name is on the Roll of Legal Practitioners in Nigeria was not entitled to sign or issue the Notice of Motion, Notice of (Cross) Appeal and Applicants’ Brief of Argument for Extension of Time in the application and that the said documents as signed and issued by the firm were null and void relying on the Court of Appeal decision in New Nigerian Bank Plc vs Dendag Ltd (2005) 4 NWLR(pt. 916) 549 at 573.

In response, the Applicant contended that a casual look at the documents confirmed that each of them was signed by the party issuing same as the counsel in the proceeding, that Respondent was not challenging the signature as being that of a legal practitioner and the import of Sections 2(1) and 24 of the Legal Practitioners Act merely required a legal practitioner representing a party in any proceeding to sign any court process. It further argued that since it was not in contention whether the process had been signed by a legal practitioner, all that was required was to call oral evidence to ascertain the legal practitioner that signed it.

The learned counsel for the Applicant further argued that a signature on any document is the attribute that authenticates the document and the documents under consideration where duly signed by “J.H.C. Okolo (SAN)” a registered Legal Practitioner shown on the Rolls of the Supreme Court as No 1265 and on the Rolls of Senior Advocates of Nigeria as No 76. The Applicant stated that the addition of the words “& CO” not in the signature authenticating the process but in the further description of that known identity is a mere surplusage which cannot take the place or displace the signature.

Interestingly, after the Respondents raised the above issues, the Applicant’s reply brief in response to the issues was signed by J.H.C. Okolo SAN and not J.H.C. Okolo SAN & Co, almost a clear admission that its former position was defective and an attempt at administering the medicine after death.  

The Supreme Court in upholding the arguments of the Respondents held that with the combined provision of section 2(1) and Section 24 of the Legal Practitioners Act, Cap 207 of the Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 1990 for a person to be qualified to practice as a legal practitioner he must have his name in the roll otherwise he cannot engage in any form of legal practice in Nigeria. The court viewed that:

“…the rule does not say that his signature must be on the roll but his name. “J.H.C. Okolo SAN & Co” is not a legal practitioner and therefore cannot practice as such by say, filing processes in the courts of this country

In holding that such court process signed by a law firm is incompetent and liable to striking out the Supreme Court stated 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.”

By the decision in Okafor’s case a court process signed by a person other than a legal practitioner is incompetent and must be struck out.

WHEN BREACH OF SECTION 2 AND 24 OF THE LEGAL PRACTITIONERS ACT ROBS THE COURT OF JURISDICTION IN THE SUIT

In a more recent case in Suit No SC. 96/2006-Chief Gabriel Igbinedion & Ors v. Umoh Asuquo Antia decided on the 17th of December 2017 the Supreme Court again considered a similar issue and in so doing showed much appreciation of its earlier decisions with regards. In this case one of the question raised by the Appellant before the Supreme Court was

“Whether the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal acted within their jurisdiction in relying on the fundamentally defective Notice of Appeal issued and signed by Chief P.C Ajayi-Obe (SAN) & Co., which is not a legal practitioner recognized by the law to practice in Nigeria?”

It was the contention of the Appellant that the judgement of the Court below was incompetent because it was predicated upon an incompetent Notice of Appeal, and so, as held in Macfoy v. UAC (1962) AC 152, “there was nothing upon which the judgement of the lower court could be predicated, and every judgement founded on such Notice of Appeal is a nullity”. The Appellant submitted that a defective Notice of Appeal is non-existent in the eyes of the law, therefore, the appeal is incompetent. It argued that the defect of the Notice of Appeal being the signing of the notice by the law firm instead of a legal practitioner as required under Section 2(1) and Section 24 of the LPA. The Appellant cited several earlier decided cases on this point for the consideration of the court. The Respondent in its reply did not address this issue.

In agreeing with the Appellant, the Supreme Court per Amina Adamu JSC stated:

“The appellants are right that a Notice of Appeal is the originating process that sets the ball rolling for the valid and lawful commencement of an appeal-Shelim v. Gobang (12) NWLR Pt. 1156 at 435. Therefore, any defect in the Notice of Appeal goes to the root of the appeal and robs this court of jurisdiction to hear the appeal”

The Court in reaching the above decision quoted with approval the dictum of Rhodes-Vivour JSC in Iwunze v, FRN (2015) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1404) at 580 where the Learned Justice observed inter alia that:

“…the originating process in all appeals is the Notice of Appeal. Once it is found to be defective the Court of Appeal ceases to have jurisdiction to entertain an appeal in whatever form”.

The apex court also cited with approval its decision in FRN v. Dairo (2015) 6 NWLR Pt. 1454 at 141 per Nweze, JSC, that:

“As it is well known, it is a notice of appeal that initiates an appeal from a High Court to the lower Court-Put differently, the notice (actually a competent notice of appeal) is the foundational process that triggers off an appeal from the High Court to the lower Court (Court of Appeal)..As such any virus in this process would, invariably, corrode or taint the entire appeal thereby rendering it incompetent. The effect of such viral corrosion is, usually, far-reaching as it nibbles at the jurisdiction of the appeal Court which must, as of necessity, strike out such a process. In effect, the absence of a competent Notice of Appeal, simply, translates to the non-existence of an appeal… This must be so for it is a condition precedent to any valid exercise of the appellate jurisdiction.

In the above cases of Igbinedion & Ors v. Umoh Asuquo (supra), Iwunze v, FRN (supra) and FRN v. Dairo (supra) the Supreme Court while maintaining the position in Okafor’s case that a law firm “cannot legally sign and/or file any court process in the courts”, and such process signed by a law firm is “incompetent in law”, the apex court went further to state succinctly that when the court process which is struck out as incompetent due to defective signing is a process which initiates the proceedings then the entire proceedings is a nullity, the foundation of the proceedings having been struck out.

The apex court in the three cases considered whether the defective process was of such nature that robbed the court of jurisdiction in the entire proceedings and on this point concluded that because the defective court processes where originating processes; having been declared incompetent, there was nothing on which the entire proceedings of the court could rest. The defect in the originating process therefore meant that there was no valid process upon which the court could assume jurisdiction.

The view expressed by their lordships in these decisions accord with the Court’s view, per Fabiyi JSC, in SBL Consortium V. NNPC (2016) 9 NWLR Pt. 1252 at 317 where the originating summons had been signed by a law firm and the Learned Justice held that:

“It is not in doubt that the signature of “Adewale Adesokan & Co” on the originating summons robs the process of competence ab initio as the said firm is not a registered legal practitioner enrolled to practice as a barrister and solicitor in this Court…In the prevailing circumstance, all the proceedings, which rested on the inchoate originating summons, are deemed not to have taken place in law. One cannot put something on nothing and expect it to stand…”

Interestingly however, in reaching its decision in Igbinedion & Ors v. Umoh Asuquo (supra), the Supreme Court also quoted with approval the dictum of Galadinma JSC in Hamzat & Anor v. Sanni & Ors (2015) 6 NWLR Pt. 1453 at 486 wherein the Learned Justice very aptly stated as follows:

“…In SBL Consortium v. NNPC this Court citing the case of Okafor v. Nweke struck out the Plaintiffs originating summons and statement of claim, both having being signed by “Adewale Adesokan & Co”, who was held not to be a legal practitioner known to law…in view of our clear position in Okafor v. Nweke and other similar cases, I hold that the Appellant’s Statement of claim on which evidence was led, were a nullity, same having been signed in the name of a law firm.”

The decision above decision struck out the statement of claim alone relying on the authority of Okafor v. Nweke. This posture to the issue has however been reconsidered by the apex court in the recent Heritage Bank’s case and distinguished from the established principles having the applicability in Okafor v. Nweke and the consequences to jurisdiction of the court.

BRIEF SUMMARY OF FACTS IN HERITAGE BANK LIMITED V. BENTWORTH FINANCE (NIGERIA) LIMITED
In Suit No: SC.175/2005-Heritage Bank Limited v. Bentworth Finance (Nigeria) Limited, decided by the Supreme Court on the 23rd day of February 2018, the Respondent had at the trial court filed a Statement of Claim on 19th of September 1990 signed and settled by “Beatrice Fisher & Co.”. The Appellant did not raise any objection on this defect at the trial court nor at the court of appeal but raised it as an issue of jurisdiction at the Supreme Court.
It was the contention of the Appellant that the Statement of Claim filed by the Respondent on 19th September 1990 signed or settled by “Beatrice Fisher & Co.” a person whose name is not on the Roll of Legal Practitioners registered in the Supreme Court and licensed to practice law in Nigeria was defective and incompetent. Consequently, it was submitted by the Appellant’s Counsel that the defective process did rob the trial court and the Court of Appeal of their jurisdiction. The Appellant cited Section 2(1) and Section 24 of the Legal Practitioners Act , LFN 1990 and the several decisions of the Supreme Court on the issue including Okafor v. Nweke (2007) 10 NWLR Pt 1375 at 513, Brathwaite v. Skye Bank Plc (2013) 5 NWLR Pt. 1346 1, Oketade v. Adewunmi (2010) 8 NWLR Pt. 1195 at 63, SLB Consortium v. NNPC (2011) 9 NWLR Pt. 1252 at 337, Nigerian Army v. Samuel (2013)14 NWLR Pt. 1375 at 466 as authorities on its arguments.
The Respondent in reply to the issue raised by the Appellant, argued that the decisions of the Court which the Appellant relied on where reached after the said statement of claim had already being filed and contended that the allegedly defective processes in the suit where filed and settled in 1990, before the decision in Okafor v. Nweke decided in 2007.
It is beyond doubt that the present issue before the apex court was one which the earlier decisions of the court seemed to have put beyond peradventure. Thus, it is understandable that the Respondent did not argue the authorities as there were several authorities against it on the point. However, the Supreme Court, per Ejembi Eko JSC, after hearing argument of parties in disagreeing with the Appellant held:

“I observe that the Appellant made no distinction between substantive jurisdiction and procedural jurisdiction. He also made no distinction between an originating summons and the allegedly defective Statement of Claim. It is important that I make this point from the onset that a defect in procedure is not the same as a defect in competence or jurisdiction. A defect in the former is regarded as a mere irregularity and it can be waived: SAUDE v. ABDULLAHI (1989) 7 SC (Pt. ii) 116. …Whether or not an irregularity renders a process void or merely voidable depends on the type of irregularity. The law is settled, as this Court pointed out in, Brathwaite v. Skye Bank Plc (2013) 5 NWLR Pt. 1346 1, Nigerian Army v. Samuel (2013)14 NWLR Pt. 1375 at 466…; an irregularity affecting an originating process is a fundamental irregularity that goes to the roots. The Statement of Claim, I must point out, is not such an originating process.

The apex court further stated that:
Jurisdictional defect that renders the adjudication incompetent ultra vires, null and void is the substantive jurisdiction because such jurisdictional issue is extrinsic to the adjudication: MADUKOLU v. NKEMDILIM (1962) 2 SCNLR 341. When want of substantive jurisdiction is raised, the issue is whether the jurisdiction vested statutorily in the court allows it to adjudicate in the matter. That is why it is extrinsic. When, however, the issue is whether a process filed in the course of proceeding or adjudication is an irregular process having not being issued or filed in accordance with the prescribed practice, the issue raised is whether the process can be countenanced, and not whether the court can ordinarily and completely assume jurisdiction and adjudicate in the matter in the first place. In most cases procedural jurisdiction is secondary to the substantive jurisdiction. The distinction between the two lies in the fact while procedural jurisdiction can be waived; substantive jurisdiction cannot be waived.
The court in reaching this decision cited with approval the dictum of Rhodes Vivour, JSC in A.G KWARA STATE & ANOR V. ALHAJI SAKA ADEYEMO & ORS (2016) 7 SC Pt. 11 P. 149 that:
“Jurisdiction is a question of law. There are two types of jurisdiction. 1. Jurisdiction as a matter of procedural law. 2. Jurisdiction as a matter of substantive law. A litigant may waive the former…”
The court concluded that although the Statement of Claim was allegedly not signed by a known legally qualified legal practitioner, the Appellant as defendant, condoned the defective process. They participated in the proceedings and evidence from the Statement of Claim was called after the Statement of Defence joining issues with the defective statement of claim, the trial court gave judgement upon the evidence and even at the court of appeal no issue was made of the alleged defective statement of Claim. The court therefore held the Appellant to have waived its right to object to the defective process.

The decision of the Supreme Court in the Heritage Bank’s case without expressly attempting to overrule itself unavoidably deviates in some regards from its position on the above issue, particularly on the implication of signing of a court process other than an originating process by a law firm or person other than a legal practitioner.
The position that a Statement of Claim or Court Process signed by a law firm rather than a legal practitioner is “irregular” rather than “incompetent” put forward clearly runs against all earlier authorities on the issue. In Hamzat & Anor v. Sanni & Ors (supra) Galadinma JSC stated without any ambiguity that the statement of claim signed by the law firm in the suit was a “nullity”. A process being a nullity ab-initio cannot receive life by condoning or a waiver as it was dead upon its arrival and is of no legal consequence. Accordingly, all proceedings upon such statement of claim stood on nothing.
This is particularly so as the Black’s Law dictionary 4th Edition defines “nullity” as 
“Nothing; no proceeding; an act or proceeding in a cause which the op- posite party may treat as though it had not taken place, or which lias absolutely no legal force or effect. Salter v. Hilgen, 40 Wis. 363; Tenness v. Lapeer County Circuit Judge, 42 Mich. 460, 4 N. W. 220; Johnson v. Dines, 61 Md.
Quite respectfully, unless the apex court intends to overrule its earlier position, there is a clear difference between its recent decision that a statement of claim signed by a law firm is “irregular” and its earlier decision that same is a “nullity”. One can only favour the view that the subsequent and more recent decision represents an implicit overruling of the earlier position or at best that there is no concurrence of two decisions of the apex court on the question.
The decision in Heritage Bank’s Case however appeals to law and logic and is not without legal framework to support the reasoning. The Court of Appeal sitting at Lagos in M.O Moudkas Nigeria Ent. Limited & Anor V. Emiko Israel Obioma (2016) LPELR-40165 (CA) had the cause to determine an exactly similar issue ie. “Whether a statement of Claim signed by a law firm was irregular and therefore curable or incompetent and therefore a nullity ab-initio”.
In the case the Plaintiff filed and properly signed the writ of summons in the name of the legal practitioner. However, the statement of Claim was signed in the name of the law firm rather than a known legal practitioner. The Plaintiff on realizing the defect filed an amended Statement of defence which reflected the name of the legal practitioner and sought to rely on same to correct the defective processes earlier filed. The Court of appeal in considering the signature on the statement of claim stated:
“Of the statement of claim I am clear in my modest opinion that it was not signed by a recognized or known registered legal practitioner or the claimants. It is on that score incurably defective. The defect cannot be cured by an amendment. The amended statement of claim does not therefore cure the mortal defect in the statement of claim. See Ministry of Works and Transport, Adamawa State and Ors. v. Yakubu and Anor. (2013) 6 NWLR (pt.1351) 481 at 495 My Lord, in the instant appeal, it is not in dispute that the

The Court of Appeal in M.O Moudkas Nigeria Ent case therefore held that the defective Statement of Claim was a nullity and same could not be curred by subsequent amendment. The Court of Appeal considering the proper order to make in the circumstances ie. Where there was a valid writ but an incompetent and void Statement of Claim decided:
“However, because the writ of summons by which the action was commenced, and which originated the action was properly signed by a legal practitioner as prescribed by our law, it remains valid and can still be built upon as a solid foundation. It is the statement of claim upon which evidence was based that cannot stand. Indeed, as the saying goes, you cannot put something or nothing and expect it to stay, it will fall. Evidence led in the case based on incompetent statement of claim is also incompetent and should be discountenanced and struck out. Therefore, the writ of summons which was separately filed several months before the statement of claim was filed having been properly signed and competent cannot and should not be allowed to be killed by an incompetent statement of claim. It stands, while the statement of claim is struck out

The above decision of the Court of Appeal quite respectfully would have been a decent guide for the Supreme Court in its consideration of the Heritage Bank Case even though the apex court’s decision can be supported by the argument I now canvass below. 

If we consider the Rules of Court on this issue, with particular focus on the Lagos Rules for illustration, the decision in Heritage Bank’s Case becomes easier to rationalize and appreciate. It is incisive to note that the Rules of court are usually an incorporation of several decided authorities on an issue of procedural law. It is therefore safe to opine that the rules regard the existing decisions of court at the time of its making.

Now, under Order 3 Rules 2(1)(2) of the High Court of Lagos State Rules 2012 it is provided that;

2. (1) All civil proceedings commenced by writ of summons shall be accompanied by: (a) statement of claim. (b) list of witnesses to be called at the trial, (c) written statements on oath of the witnesses except witnesses on subpoena (d) copies of every document to be relied on at the trial. (e) Pre-action Protocol Form 01
(2) Where a claimant fails to comply with Rules 2 (1) above, his originating process shall not be accepted for filling by the Registry

Rules Order 5 of the same Rules state that:

(1) Where in beginning or purporting to begin any proceeding there has by reason of anything done or left undone, been a failure to comply with the requirements of these rules, the failure shall nullify the proceedings.

(2) Where at any stage in the course of or in connection with any proceedings there has by reason of anything done or left undone been a failure to comply with the requirements as to time, place manner, or form, the failure shall be treated as an irregularity and may not nullify such step taken in the proceedings. The Judge may give any direction as he thinks fit to regularize such steps.

2. (1) An application to set aside for irregularity any step taken in the course of any proceedings may be allowed where it is made within a reasonable time and before the party applying has taken any fresh step after becoming aware of the irregularity

The provision of Order 5 quoted above represents the state of the procedural law on the issue and states that any violation done to a process which commences proceedings shall nullify the proceedings. However, if the violation is not of a process which commences proceedings, but one filed after commencement of proceedings then such violation is an irregularity which may not nullify proceedings depending on whether objection to the irregularity is raised timeously or condoned by the adverse party.
The basis of this position is that after an action is properly commenced the court assumes substantive jurisdiction. The jurisdiction which then guides proceedings after the court assumes jurisdiction is the procedural jurisdiction which does not nullify the proceedings if it is cured or waived by the party at whose instance it ought to be set it aside for irregularity.
What is left therefore is to query whether a “Statement of Claim” is an originating process for assumption of the court’s substantive jurisdiction? On this Order 3 of the Lagos Rules being used illustratively indicates a civil action may be commenced by a writ of summons which shall be accompanied inter alia by a statement of claim. An argument that a statement of claim is an originating process is therefore akin to argument that list of documents in a suit commences an action. This is so because an originating or initiating process is one which commences an action.
The question whether a statement of Claim is an originating process was considered by the court of appeal in the case of Buhari V. Adebayo (2014) 10 NWLR Pt 1416 where the court on held per Ajeku JCA:
“… from the above clear and unambiguous provisions, the statement of claim is one of the accompanying processes to be filed with a writ of summons in a proceeding initiated by a writ. The writ is the originating or initiating process.”

Therefore, the statement of claim not a process which begins or purports to begin a suit, a defect therein should ordinarily not nullify the proceedings and can should therefore not rob the court of its jurisdiction over the suit in itss entirety. This is the premise and conclusion of the decision of the court in the Heritage Bank Case.

IN CONCLUSION
The Supreme Court by its decision in Heritage Bank Ltd has clearly amended the new blue print for arguments on the effect of Section 2 and 24 of the Legal Practitioner’s Act to court processes signed by person other than the Litigant or his Legal Practitioner defined thereunder. The position of the law can be succinctly summarized presently to be:
1.   Where the originating process itself (ie. The writ of summons, the originating summons or the petition) is not issued or signed by a Litigant or his Legal practitioner whose name appears on the Roll of the Supreme Court, such court process is incompetent, a nullity and the court cannot assume jurisdiction upon same. Therefore, all proceedings borne of such incompetent processes are null and void.

2.   Where the defective signature by a law firm is not contained on the originating process but on some other accompanying documents or court processes the authorities are divided on whether the defective signing makes such process irregular or rather renders them a nullity. In any case, the op-posite party is enjoined to object timeously to such defect in any court-process not being an originating process. Where a party does not object timeously but rather joins issues without any objections, his right to subsequently raise the issue may be deemed to have been waived. This dual position shall persist until such time when the supreme Court has opportunity to give a decision on the issue either by overruling its earlier position or clarifying with certainty.

By OLIVER OMOREDIA ESQ
Associate, Obiagwu & Obiagwu LLP
11, Christ Avenue, Off Admiralty Way Lekki Phase 1,
Lagos.
Email: oliveromoredia@yahoo.com

Oliver Omoredia
Criminal Defence Lawyer

  

Lawyers
play a very vital role in the Nigerian Creative Industry and Business World.
This training aims to increase and develop the competence of lawyers by providing
adequate knowledge to further understand the needs of clients in the entertainment,
sports, creative and financial business industries.  

Key
Benefits –

By attending this program, you will be able
to –

·       Understand the key concept in finance and
investment.

·       Able to scale up by adding more value to your
client when negotiating with the other party, as you will be able to estimate
the financial implication of specific changes in the deal.

·       Be able to ask the right questions from your
client, and from other financial advisors – accountant and investment advisors
etc

·       Improve your understanding of current
financial market development and trends.

·       Understand the various types of agreements and
needs of persons in the entertainment industry.

·       Have a good knowledge of Sports Law in Nigeria
and how to service clients in the sporting industry including athletes, sports
administrations and organisations.

·       Understand the various agreements used in the
sports industry and how to draft them.

·       Understand how to make use of mediation in resolving
disputes for creatives, sports persons and entertainment industry players.

·       Understand how best to protect the Intellectual
Property Rights of Creatives.

·       Learn the dynamics of Forensic Document
Examination and how to identify forged documents, handwritings and signatures.

Training
Overview  

The scheduled modules for the training are
directed at how lawyers can best take advantage of new areas of law including
– 

·      
Sports
Law 

·      
Mediation

·      
Entertainment
Law 

·      
Finance
for Lawyers 

·      
Forensic
Document Examination; and 

·      
Intellectual
Property Law. 

Resource
Persons

We have invited seasoned professionals with
legal and finance background and decades of hands-on experience to share their
experiences and skills with participants in the training. Our tutors are experts
in the above areas of law and have a track record of excellence in their chosen
fields and specializations.

Training
Information
– 

Date
– 26^th and 27^th April, 2018

Venue
– LCCI Conference & Exhibition Centre, Nurudeen Olowopopo Drive, Alausa,
Ikeja, Lagos

Time :- 9am – 5pm Daily

Registration Details

Fee
per delegate:

N25,000 – Early Bird
(Ends 31st March, 2018)

N30,000 – Regular

Account
Details –

Lawlexis
International Limited

Fidelity
Bank

4011176564

Note
that all Payment confirmation and Delegate Information should be sent to lawlexisinternational@gmail.com.
For contact and sponsorship details, Please contact Lawlexis on  09095635314; 08055424566 

Will you like to attend the 2018 Career Training For Lawyers
for FREE? It’s easy – 

1. Visit the Legalnaija Instagram Page via www.instagram.com/legalnaija 

2. Like and Repost this Photo.

3. Write a comment below the photo stating why you deserve to win the
scholarship.

3. The comment with the highest likes wins.

WHAT ARE YOU WAITING FOR !!!!!!!!!