LSP111: The Position of Law on Expired NBA stamps

Generally, stamps serve as a means of identification, and this holds true in the legal profession where the same principle applies. Within the legal context, stamps act as a form of professional identification. When a lawyer attaches their stamp or seal to a legal document, it visually signifies their participation and confirms the document’s authenticity. Stamps also provide pertinent information about the lawyer, including their name, call number, and other relevant details.

In Nigeria, stamps for legal practitioners are issued by the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA). The purpose of the NBA stamp and seal is to ensure that legal practitioners who file processes in Court have their names on the roll of legal practitioners in Nigeria and that quacks, impostors and meddlesome interlopers do not infiltrate the legal profession and present themselves to litigants as legal Practitioners. 

Giving this rationale a judicial encomium, the Court in Rosolu v FRN, quoted in CBN v Eze & Anor (2021) LPELR-55554(CA) opined that ” The rationale behind this requirement in my view, is to checkmate quacks in the legal profession and ensure that legal processes are filed by genuine legal practitioners who are registered members of the Nigerian Bar Association and are truly qualified to practice law.” 

The issue of stamp and the validity of the originating processes go to the root of the case because if the originating processes are found to be invalid, then, there would have been nothing to activate the jurisdiction of the Court and consequently, the proceedings and whatever decision is reached would amount to nullity.

Having laid the background, the issue for determination is whether affixing an expired stamp on a Court process will render the same invalid and liable to be struck out. This issue has been reoccurring before the courts and an instance case is Emechebe v Ceto International (Nig) LTD (2017) LPELR-45365(CA). In that case, the Appellant contends that the Nigerian Bar Association stamp and seal affixed to the Originating Processes by the Respondent’s Counsel at the lower Court had expired and therefore the processes should be deemed irregular and that no application had been filed to regularize the said defective processes. The Respondent on the other hand argued that failure to use seal does not nullify Court processes and that in the instant case, there was in existence a valid seal of learned Counsel and that the Respondent filed an application to regularize the processes filed before the Court. 

The court Per Tijjani Abubakar, JCA  (Pp 15 – 18 Paras A – E) held that “in the instant case, since the Respondent’s Originating processes contain a stamp which bears the name and number of the Counsel who filed the said processes and it is not that the Respondent had failed to affix any stamp at all, and even if the Appellant’s contention is upheld herein, it is at best an irregularity, which can be remedied by affixing the unexpired stamp and seal, which from the records before us, learned Counsel for the Respondent no doubt has, having been clearly affixed to other Applications filed at the lower Court. Since the material constitutes part of records before us, I am bound to take judicial notice and hold that the submission of learned Counsel for the Appellant on this point lacks merit and must be and is hereby discountenanced by me.”

Furthermore, the courts have consistently held the view that dismissing an originating process solely based on an expired seal is an excessive emphasis on technicalities, which the courts disapprove of. In Emechebe’s case, the court also held that to hold as the learned Counsel for the Appellant strenuously urged us to do will amount to enthroning technicalities over substantial justice, no matter how ornamental, fancy and high-sounding submissions of Counsel may appear to be, we must elevate substantial justice over and above technicalities, it is a matter of duty for the Court to do. Similar principle of law was also held in the case of Today’s Car Limited v Lasaco Assurance PLC (2016) LPELR-41260 (CA) Pg. 6 – 86, Paras C – C. 

In conclusion, until and unless jettisoned by the Supreme Court, the judgment by multiple divisions of the Court of Appeal on this matter appears to be a positive and progressive step in the right direction. This is particularly relevant when considering situations where lawyers may experience delays in obtaining new stamps due to administrative issues. In such cases, the option of utilizing an expiry seal becomes necessary.

Thank you for reading. See you next week.