LSP144: The Legal Implications of the Letter “f” Before a Signature and Document

Good afternoon, readers. Today, we’ll look into what adding the letter “f” before signing a document means in law. In consideration, attention is paid to the recent 2024 supreme court case of Alhaji Shehu Ashaka v Samson Chidi Nwachuku [2004] 9 NWLR (Pt. 1942) 149.

In this case, there’s a contract dispute between an appellant and a respondent regarding a road construction project. The appellant awarded the contract to the respondent, who subcontracted part of the work. An amount of N2 million was owed by the appellant to the respondent, which included payment for additional work. To fund the project, the respondent took a loan. Initially, the respondent sued for the outstanding balance and interest using an undefended list, later moving the case to the general cause list. The trial court ruled in favor of the respondent, ordering payment of N2 million plus interest. The Court of Appeal partially allowed the appeal, reducing the interest rate. The appellant then appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the respondent’s initial legal process was invalid since it wasn’t signed by a legally recognized practitioner, as mandated by the Legal Practitioners Act and the Plateau State High Court Rules. The Supreme Court examined these legal provisions as part of its decision-making process in the appeal.

Generally, an originating process is indeed crucial in legal proceedings as it sets the stage for the entire lawsuit or appeal. Its competency is vital for establishing the court’s jurisdiction and activating its authority. A valid initiating process must be signed by either the plaintiff (if self-representing) or a legal practitioner if one is involved. This signature is essential for clarity and compliance with legal requirements. Any ambiguity or improper signature can render the document invalid, which not only violates legal statutes like the Legal Practitioners Act but also risks undermining the integrity of the legal process itself. It’s imperative to uphold these standards to prevent unauthorized individuals from engaging in legal representation and to ensure the legitimacy of court documents.

Now to the issue in contention, the law is that when the letter “f” precedes a signature on a document, it signifies “for,” indicating that the signatory is signing on behalf of someone else who cannot sign the document themselves. If a court document is signed in this manner, it creates uncertainty about the identity of the person signing the originating process. This uncertainty is a significant issue under the law because legal documents must be signed either by a party involved or their legal representative. The court cannot speculate or gather evidence to determine the identity of an unknown proxy.

In the case at hand, the originating process submitted by the respondent to the trial court was deemed incompetent because it was signed by an unidentified individual. Jauro JSC opined that: “In the instant case, the writ of summons was signed in the same way the motion ex parte to place the suit under the undefended list was signed. It was signed thus: “f “signature impression/mark” Oba Madaubuchi, Esq 4 New Zaria Terrace, Jos. From the manner in which the writ of summons was signed or executed, there is no doubt that it was signed by an unnamed and unknown person whose status as a legal practitioner is unknown and unascertainable. There is nothing on the face of the Writ or indeed any other document before the court to show that it was signed by a legal practitioner. The LPA does not envisage the signing of court processes through an unknown proxy.”

Relying on the precedent of AI-Masmoon Security Ltd v. Pipelines Marketing Products Co. Ltd.  Kekere Ekun JSC, in her judgment at page 176, paragraphs F-H, addressed a similar issue. The notice of appeal in that case was signed by an unknown proxy on behalf of the named legal practitioner, Emmanuel Esene of Emmanuel Esene & Co. The signature had the prefix “pp” before Emmanuel Esene’s name. There was an attempt during the proceedings to argue that “pp” stood for “Principal Partner,” but this argument was dismissed based on the established dictionary meaning of “pp” as “per pro,” indicating “by proxy.”

Having pointed out the issue, the court clarified the correct procedure for signing on behalf of another person by emphasizing the importance of disclosing both the name and identity of the signatory and the person they are signing for, especially in chambers. In the case under consideration, the writ of summons had a prefix “f” before the name “Oba Maduabuchi, Esq,” creating uncertainty about the signatory’s identity on behalf of Oba Maduabuchi, Esq. It was impossible to determine whether the signatory was a recognized legal practitioner in Nigeria or not. This fundamental defect rendered the originating process defective, resulting in the trial court lacking jurisdiction to handle the case.

Consequently, the Court of Appeal also lacked jurisdiction to entertain the appeal arising from this case. In essence, you cannot build something on a flawed foundation and expect it to stand. Therefore, the action was struck out because when a court finds that the suit before the trial court is incompetent and deprives the courts of the necessary jurisdiction to adjudicate, the appropriate and proper order is to strike out the suit.

Interesting, there is a difference between a dismissal and striking out of a case. When an action is dismissed, it means that the court has considered the merits of the case and found them lacking, thus the case cannot be litigated again. In contrast, when an action is struck out, it means the court has not considered the merits of the case. Instead, the case is removed from the court’s list, often due to procedural issues or defects, but it can be resuscitated or relisted once the issues are resolved.

Giving this a judicial encomium, the supreme court per Tanko Mohammed (as he then was) in Re Apeh & Ors (2017) LPELR-42035(SC) opined that “I think I should re-state the well settled principle of the law and permanent feature of the practice of the Courts that when action is struck out, it is still alive and could be resuscitated by the plaintiff/appellant. It is not so when a matter is dismissed. The matter comes to a final bus-stop and the particular claim or relief suffers the vicissitude of death and it can hardly be revived.”

At this point, it is understandable to feel emotional, especially if you’re not a lawyer or law student. After spending many years in court, you might wonder why the court struck out the action. It might even seem surprising that the appellant’s lawyer raised the issue of the process not being signed by a lawyer for the first time at the Supreme Court. You might ask, why not apply substantive justice?

However, I believe the court’s decision is correct. In our pursuit of substantive justice, we cannot afford to violate fundamental laws. As noted in Nweke v Okafor (2007) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1043) 521, Fabiyi JSC (as he then was) held that substantial justice is achieved not by bending the law but by applying it as it is written, not as it ought to be. Applying the provisions of sections 2(1) and 24 of the Legal Practitioners Act as drafted by the Legislature is not a matter of technicality. It is about upholding the substantive provisions of the law as they stand. The law should not be bent to suit the whims and caprices of the parties or their counsel. Therefore, it is not merely a technicality when a substantive provision of the law is rightly invoked.

In conclusion, while it may seem frustrating that the court struck out the case after many years, the decision was correct because it adhered to fundamental legal principles. Legal documents must be properly signed by recognized practitioners, as mandated by the Legal Practitioners Act. Upholding these standards ensures the integrity of the legal process. As stated in Nweke v Okafor, justice is served by applying the law as it is, not by bending it to fit circumstances. Therefore, the court’s adherence to these rules, even at the expense of procedural setbacks, ultimately supports the rule of law and fair legal practice.

Please kindly leave a comment. I need to have at least 50 comments on this article. Thank you for reading. See you next week.