Whether the Signature of the Registrar is a Substitute for the Requirement of the Signature of Parties or Their Counsel on a Court Process?

CASE TITLE: ODU & ORS v. BAMTEFA & ORS (2025) LPELR-81564(CA)

JUDGMENT DATE: 3RD JULY, 2025

PRACTICE AREA: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

LEAD JUDGMENT: BIOBELE ABRAHAM GEORGEWILL, J.C.A.

SUMMARY OF JUDGMENT:

INTRODUCTION:

This appeal borders on the Signing of the Originating Process.

FACTS:

This appeal is against the judgment of the High Court of Ogun State sitting in the Agbara Judicial Division, Coram: A. A. Akinyemi J., in Suit No. HCT/59/2006: Madam Dorcas Odu & Ors. v. Baba Oyinbo & Ors., delivered on 28/11/2011, in which the Appellants’ suit as 7th-12th Claimants was dismissed for lacking in merit.

By a Writ of Summons, the 1st-11th Respondents and the Appellants as 1st, 2nd and 3rd Sets of Claimants before the trial Court commenced an action against the 12th-22nd Respondents as Defendants claiming several declaratory and injunctive reliefs in respect of lands situated at Ketu Adie Owe, Paramole, Ayigbaboro Village and Ishaga Idiroko Village.

The Writ of Summons was endorsed by Marcus Babaoye and Co., without the signature of either the Claimants or their named counsel. Subsequently, the Writ of Summons was amended and still without the signature of either the Claimants or any named counsel who signed it. However, the Writ of Summons was signed by the Registrar of the lower Court and accompanied by an endorsement dated 16th February, 2006, issued by Marcus O. Babaoye and Co., of 173 Igosere Road, Lagos, or Chief Rasheed Bamtefa, Iga-Nla Chieftaincy, Ido-Arobe, Igbesa, Ota, Ogun State, and accompanied by a Statement of Claim and signed by one Nweke Andy Ojo, legal practitioner.

The parties filed and exchanged pleadings, and at the close of pleadings and upon joinder of issues therein, the matter proceeded to trial. The 12th – 22nd Respondents filed their Statement of Defence and a counterclaim was also filed by the 12th Defendant/Respondent. The parties led evidence and closed their respective cases and proceeded to file and exchange their Final Written Addresses, which were subsequently duly adopted by them, and on 28/11/2011, the trial Court delivered its judgment in which it dismissed the claims of the Appellants and the 1st-11th Respondents as 1st, 2nd and 3rd Sets of Claimants against the 12th-22nd Respondents as Defendants.

Dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Court of Appeal.

ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION:

The Court considered the appeal on a lone issue viz:

“Whether or not the lower Court had jurisdiction to entertain and determine this suit when the suit was not properly commenced as required by law?”

DECISION/HELD:

In conclusion, the Court allowed the appeal.

RATIOS:

• PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – SIGNING OF COURT PROCESS(ES) – Whether signing of court process is a jurisdictional issue
• PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – RULES OF PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Whether the applicable rule of procedure is the extant rule at the time a matter is being heard and not the rule of procedure at the time the matter was filed
• PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – SIGNING OF COURT PROCESS(ES) – Whether a law firm is a legal practitioner capable of signing Court processes
• PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – SIGNING OF COURT PROCESS(ES) – Whether the signature of the Registrar is a substitute for the requirement of the signature of parties or their counsel

To read the full judgment or similar judgments, subscribe to Prime or Primsol