ff. Claimants Solicitors Victor Obaika

Obaika & Co. 3rd Floor,

Kingsway Building 2/4 Davies Street Marina,

These were the processes filed on behalf of the claimant in this court. And for any process filed in this court to be valid, it has to conform to the relevant rules of this court. The relevant provisions are Orders 4(4)(3) and 6(2) of the National Industrial Court Rules 2007 which provide as follows Order 4 (4) (3) - An originating process shall be signed by the claimant or his or her Legal Practitioner where the claimant sues through a Legal Practitioner.Order 6 (2) - Each copy shall be signed by the claimant where he or she is suing in person or the Legal Practitioner and shall be certified after verification by the Registrar as being a true copy of the original process filed.A reading of the above provisions reveal that for a process to be valid and proper in this court, it must be signed by the claimant or the Legal Practitioner representing the claimant if the claimant sues through a Legal Practitioner. It is clear on the face of the processes in question that Victor Obaika, the said solicitor to the claimant did not sign the said processes himself. Rather the processes were signed for the solicitor, Victor Obaika, by a person who neither indicated his name nor his designation. This has called for the validity of the said processes which were signed for Victor Obaika by an unnamed person. This is the issue that has to be resolved.

In Okafor & ors v. Nweke & ors [2007] 3 SC (Pt. II) 55, the Supreme Court held that the processes filed in court must be signed by a Legal Practitioner recognized by the law. That a person signing the process must have his name in the roll of registered Legal Practitioners who is qualified to practice as Barrister or Solicitor. The Supreme Court held that section 2(1) of the Legal Practitioners Act Cap. 2007 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 1990 did not say that what should be in the roll should be the signature of the Legal Practitioner but his name.Also the Court of Appeal, Lagos Division in Peak Merchant Bank Ltd v. NDIC unreported Suit No. CA/L/572/05, the judgment of which was delivered on May 14, 2010 applied the decision of the Supreme Court in Okafor v. Nweke (supra). In that case, His lordship Mshelia, JCA held as follows:-I am of the firm view that any person signing process on behalf of a principal partner in the chambers must state his name and designation to show that he is a legal practitioner whose name is ascertainable in the roll of registered legal practitioners. This is to avoid a situation where a clerk, messenger or secretary would sign processes filed in court on behalf of principal partners in the chambers. Nobody is saying that a junior counsel in chambers cannot sign or file process on behalf of a principal partner but his identity must be stated. It is not enough to just sign the process without indicating the name and designation of such person.

This position of the law was again re-affirmed by the Supreme Court in the recent case of SLB Consortium Ltd v. NNPC [2011] 9 NWLR (Pt. 1252) 317. In that case, the Supreme Court held as follows:-All processes filed in court are to be signed as follows

First, the signature of counsel, which may be any contraption.