LEGAL PRINCIPLE: CIVIL PROCEDURE – Parties – Firm Name – Legal Nature of Firm Name as Mere Expression for Convenience
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
In English law a firm as such has no existence. The firm name is a mere expression, not a legal entity, although for convenience under Order XLIII.A it may be used for the sake of suing or being sued.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Uwaifo, JSC, quoting Farwell LJ in Sadler v. Whiteman, in Iyke Medical Merchandise v. Pfizer Inc & Anor (2001) NLC-291996(SC) at pp. 7–8; Paras E–A.
"In English law a firm as such has no existence. The firm name is a mere expression, not a legal entity, although for convenience under Order XLIII.A it may be used for the sake of suing or being sued."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
A firm name is not a legal entity—it is a mere expression of convenience for litigation purposes. The firm has no separate existence apart from its partners. Under the rules of court, the firm name may be used for suing or being sued as a procedural convenience. This does not create legal personality. The real parties are the individual partners. The judgment binds the partners personally. The principle prevents confusion between procedural convenience and substantive legal personality. The firm name is a label for the collective partners. The court may order disclosure of the partners’ names and addresses. The rule facilitates litigation while preserving the underlying reality of partnership liability.
