SUMMARY OF THE PRONOUNCEMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT ON 13 NOVEMBER 2015

“In his cross-appeal, the 2nd Respondent raised a singular issue for resolution: Whether the Court of Appeal was right to hold that failure of a legal document to have affixed to it a stamp/seal as mandated by Rule 10(1) of the Rules of Professional conduct did not carry with it the consequence of rendering such legal document incompetent…”
The issue calls for application of Rule 10(1) (2) and (3) of the Rules of Professional Conduct 2007 effective from 1st April, 2015. The 2nd Respondent placed reliance on the said rule hereunder reproduced:
“Rule 10 (1) A Lawyer acting in his (or her) capacity as a legal practitioner legal officer or adviser of any governmental department or any Corporation, shall not sign or file a legal document unless there is affixed on any such document a seal and stamp approved by the Nigerian Bar Association.”
“Rule 10(2) For the purpose of this rule “legal documents” shall include pleadings, affidavits, depositions, applications, instruments, agreements, deeds, letters, memoranda, reports, legal opinions or any similar documents.’
“Rule 10(3) If, without complying with the requirements of this rule a lawyer signs or files any legal documents as defined in sub-rule 2 of this rule, and in any of the capacities mentioned in sub-rule (2), the document so signed or filed shall be deemed not to have been properly signed or filed.”
‘The documents in question here purportedly signed and filed by a lawyer in his capacity as legal practitioner did not have on it “a seal and stamp approved by the Nigerian Bar Association.” The proess so signed and filed is a legal process within the intendment of Rule 10(2) of the Rules."
"What is the consequence of a legal document signed and filed in contravention of Rule 10(1) in these Rules?
The answer is as provided in Rule 10(3) to the effect that “…. the document so signed or filed shall be deemed not to have been properly signed or filed”. It is my humble view that the legal document so signed and/or filed is not null and void or incompetent like the case of a court process signed in the name of a corporation or association (even of lawyers). See Okafor v. Nweke (2007) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1043) SC 521 cited by the learned silk for the 2nd Respondent/Cross Appellant. The document, in terms of the Rule, is deemed not to have been properly signed or filed, but not incompetent as the 2nd Respondent assumed.
It has been signed and filed but not properly so signed and filed for the reason that the condition precedent to its proper signing and filing had not been met. It is akin to a legal document or process filed at the expiration of the time allowed by the rules or extended by the court.
In such cases, the filing of the process can be regularized by extension of time and a deeming order. In the case at hand, the process filed in breach of Rule 1091) can be saved and its signing and filing regularized by affixing the approved seal and stamp on it. It is a legal document improperly filed and the fixing of the seal and stamp would make the filing proper in law. Since this was not done the court cannot take cognizance of a document not properly filed and the filing not regularized.
I do not subscribe to the Respondent’s view that the rule does not provide any punishment for its breach. That the legal document is deemed not properly signed and filed is enough sanction for the breach of the rule. There is also the argument that the rule constitutes a curtailment of the right of appeal under the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended).
No right, including the right of appeal is absolute. A pre-action notice has been held to be a condition for the exercise of the right to bring the action and not an abridgment of that right. See Anambra State Government & Ors v. Marcel & Ors (1996) 9 NWLR (Pt. 213) 115.
It is for the above that we allowed the cross-appeal and set aside the judgment of the Court of Appeal.
In conclusion, we dismissed the appeal as well as the 1st Respondents cross-appeal and allowed the cross-appeal of the 2nd Respondent. It was ordered that parties bear their respective costs."
LEAD REASONS BY:--- Hon. Justice Sylvester Ngwuta at pages 5-8 of the CTC of judgment delivered on 13th Nov., 2015 in SC/722/2015 in SENATOR BELLO SARAKIN YAKI (RTD) and PDP vs- SENATOR ATIKU ABUBAKAR BAGUDU, APC and INEC."
the CTC IS OUT. YOU WILL GET IT ON MONDAY.