Rose Star Enterprises Limited & Anor V. Indo Nigerian Bank Limited (2014)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

ITA GEORGE MBABA, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

This is an appeal against the decision of Kano State High Court in Suit No. K/651/2004, delivered by Hon. Justice Nuhu Yahaya Galadinci on 6th December, 2007, wherein the lower court entered judgment for the Plaintiff (now Respondent) in the suit, earlier placed on the undefended list. The claim of the Respondent at the trial was made:

“against the Defendants jointly and severally, the sum of N6,028,169.45, plus 22,5% (sic) interest at Bank rate, from the 30th day of September, 2004 till the date of judgment and thereafter 10% interest at court rate, from the date of judgment till final liquidation of the judgment debt. And the cost of action.

Respondent had granted the 1st Appellant financial accommodation, which was later up stamped to N5.5million, and at close of business on 30/9/2004, had risen to N6,028,169.95. The suit was placed on the undefended list for hearing and determination, but the Appellants filed notice of intention to defend the suit and affidavit therefor. The trial court held that the Appellants did not disclose any defence to the claim, and entered judgment for the Respondent.

Dissatisfied, Appellants filed this appeal, on 14/8/2008 and disclosed four grounds of appeal, as shown on pages 168 and 169 of the Records of Appeal, as follows:

“(1)The learned trial Judge erred in law when he held that the writ of summons was validly signed by a legal practitioner.

PARTICULARS OF ERROR:

a. The Writ of Summons on the undefended list procedure was signed by P. A. Oyoyo & Co. who is not a legal practitioner with licence to practice as such.

b. It is trite law that only a legal practitioner as defined by Section 2(1) and 24 of the Legal Practitioners Act, Cap 20 LFN 1990 can validly file and sign court processes of any type.

c. The Supreme Court case of OKAFOR vs. OKEKE (2007) ALL FWLR (Pt. 368) 1016 has clearly settled the issue of who can sign a court process.

1) The learned trial Judge erred in law when he held that case of OKAFOR vs. OKEKE (supra) is distinguishable from the one before him on the premise that the case of OKAFOR vs. OKEKE is limited to motions generally and thus refused to follow the decision of the Apex Court.

PARTICULARS OF ERROR:

a. The learned Supreme Court Justices decision is all encompassing and did not spare any court processes i.e. Writ of Summons, Statement of Claim, Motions, Notice of Appeal etc.

b. The learned Apex Court in OKAFOR vs. OKEKE (supra) has finally laid to rest the issue of who can endorse/sign a court process on behalf of litigants.