PROFESSIONAL ETHICS — Legal Practitioners — Signing of Court Processes — Firm Name Without Individual Practitioner’s Name Renders Process Incompetent
Principle Statement
A court process signed by a firm name alone (e.g., "J.H.C. Okolo SAN & Co.") without the individual name and signature of a named legal practitioner is improperly signed and incompetent. The argument that annulling such a process is an over-adherence to technicality fails to recognize the importance of ensuring that laws are strictly enforced and observed.
Ratio Decidendi (Source)
Per Oguntade, JSC, in Okafor & Ors v. Nweke & Ors (2007) NLC-123-27-2002(SC) at pp. 8–10; Paras D–A.
"The motion under consideration in this ruling was signed by 'J.H.C. Okolo SAN & Co. Applicants Counsel 162 Zik Avenue. Uwani, Enugu.' ... The practice is either right and acceptable or wrong and unacceptable. ... The argument that it is an over adherence to technicality to annul the process improperly signed and filed by J.H.C. Okolo SAN & Co fails to overlook the good sense in ensuring that our Laws are strictly enforced and observed."
Explanation / Scope
The requirement that legal practitioners sign processes individually is not a mere technicality; it ensures accountability, identifies the responsible lawyer, and complies with statutory provisions governing legal practice. Courts have consistently held that there is no room for a dual standard—either the practice is lawful and acceptable, or it is not. A process signed by a firm alone is defective and cannot be cured by the presence of a Senior Advocate in the firm’s name.
