Judicial Attitude Towards Entitlement to Practise Law in Nigeria Vis à vis the Competence of Court Processes Signed by Law Firms
Oamen, Philip E. (2015) Judicial Attitude Towards Entitlement to Practise Law in Nigeria Vis à vis the Competence of Court Processes Signed by Law Firms. Journal of Private and Property Law, 4. pp. 42-63. ISSN 0794-0424
|
Text
A_CRITICAL_APPRAISAL_OF_JUDICIAL_ATTITUD.pdf - Accepted Version Download (213kB) |
Abstract
The issue of the propriety or competence of Law Firms in signing Court Processes has assumed an interesting dimension in the Nigerian legal or justice administration system. Court Processes have been thrown out or struck out by the Courts on the basis that they were not properly signed by either litigants themselves or their Legal Practitioners, even where such Processes have been clearly signed by the Law Firms of Legal Practitioners retained by the litigants. While some concerned legal experts have argued that the Courts ought not to strike out a Process signed by a Law Firm on the ground that such action smacks of unguarded adherence to technicalities, some others and indeed the Courts are of the firm view that a Law Firm is not a Legal Practitioner as defined by the Legal Practitioners Act, Cap L11, Laws of the Federations, 2010 and as such, any Process purportedly signed by such a firm is incompetent and liable to be struck out.
In this paper, we have examined the position of the law, both extinct and extant, on this burning or topical issue. We have contended that any Suit or Appeal initiated by a Process which is signed by a Law Firm is liable to be struck out, same having not been initiated by the due process of the Law. Thus, we have gravitated towards the extant judicial position that a Law Firm cannot validly sign a Process, in view of the fact that it was not called to the Bar or enrolled by the Supreme Court to practise Law –including signing of Processes – in Nigeria. However, we have also argued that the extant position of the Law should not apply to Processes signed and filed by Law Firms under the now extinct pre - 2007 Supreme Court position. In respect of such Processes, we have recommended a “judicial saving provision”. We have also not failed to criticise some awkward pronouncements by the apex Court as regards the issue discussed in this paper.
| Item Type: | Article | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dates: |
|
||||||
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | Court, Legal Practitioner, Law Firm, Process, Sign | ||||||
| Subjects: | CAH16 - law > CAH16-01 - law > CAH16-01-01 - law | ||||||
| Divisions: | Faculty of Business, Law and Social Sciences > School of Law | ||||||
| Depositing User: | Philip Oamen | ||||||
| Date Deposited: | 23 Jan 2023 14:55 | ||||||
| Last Modified: | 23 Jan 2023 14:55 | ||||||
| URI: | https://www.open-access.bcu.ac.uk/id/eprint/14135 |
Actions (login required)
 |
View Item |
Tools
Tools