REG. TRUSTEES OF APOSTOLIC CHURCH V. AKINDELE

• Pages: 117-119

REG. TRUSTEES OF APOSTOLIC CHURCH V. AKINDELE



117

REG. TRUSTEES OF APOSTOLIC CHURCH V.

AKINDELE

REGISTERED TRUSTEES OF THE

APOSTOLIC CHURCH, LAGOS AREA

V.

RAHMAN A. AKINDELE

SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA

BRETT,



Ag. C.J.N.

BAIRAMIAN,



J.S.C.

COKER,



J.S.C.

14th April, 1967

APPELLANTS

RESPONDENT

SUIT NO. SC 355/1966

Civil Action - Practice and Procedure - Notice of appeal (i) giving registered

business name of legal practitioner representing the appellants and (ii) signed

by him in his own name - Whether valid - Whether signature in a business

name irregular

Legal Practitioners - Use of registered business name in documents

Legislation - Registration of Titles (Appeals) Rules (Cap. 181 in Vol.10) r.4, -

High Court of Lagos (Appeals) Rule, 0.3 r.2 - Legal Practitioners Act, 1962.

ISSUE:

1.

Whether the use of a business name of a legal practitioner for the signature of

a notice of appeal required to be signed by a litigant or the legal practitioner

representing him is irregular.

FACTS:

The proceedings originated in a hearing before the Registrar of Titles.

The trustees had appealed to the High Court. The notice of appeal gave the

legal practitioner's name as J.A. Cole & Co. and was signed `J.A. Cole for J.A.

Cole & Co.'

Under rule 4 of the Registration of Titles (Appeals) Rules, the notice of appeal

must be signed by the appellant or the legal practitioner representing him, and

must contain the name of the legal practitioner (0.3 of the High Court of Lagos

(Appeals) Rules makes similar provision but applies to appeals from the Magis-

trates Court).

After hearing argument on the merits, the appellate judge dismissed the appeal

as not being properly before urn on the ground that the notice of appeal was

given by the firm of J.A. Cole & Co. which was not a legal practitioner under the

Legal Practitioners Act, 1962.

Mr. J.A. Cole, a duly registered legal practitioner entitled to practice as such

under the Act, practiced alone but in the duly registered business name J.A. Cole

& Co. to which no professional objection was suggested or raised.

In the Supreme Court, the respondents supported the judgment of the High

Court. The argument was also raised on whether the use of a business name for

the signature of documents required to be signed by a litigant or his legal practi-