The Uncertain Signature: A Critical Examination of the Supreme Court's Decision in Olowe & Anor v. Aluko (2025) LPELR-81320 (SC)

■ Introduction

In the ever-evolving landscape of Nigerian legal practice, the question of who may validly sign court processes remains one of both procedural and professional significance. The recent Supreme Court decision in Olowe & Anor v. Aluko (2025) LPELR-81320 (SC) has added a new dimension to this long-standing issue. In a move that has stirred both relief and controversy within the legal community, the apex court has pronounced that a process signed in the name of a law firm will not be defective if the name of the firm is made up solely of enrolled legal practitioners.

This article takes a deep dive into the facts, reasoning, and implications of the judgment, while raising concerns about the possible erosion of safeguards against impersonation, professional accountability, and procedural clarity.

■ The Facts of the Case

The central issue in Olowe & Anor v. Aluko arose from an objection taken to the validity of a Statement of Claim. The Writ of Summons in the suit was signed by Akin Olujimi, SAN, a known legal practitioner. However, the Statement of Claim was signed under the name "Akeredolu & Olujimi," a partnership or firm name that is commonly associated with legal practice in Nigeria.

The opposing party objected, contending that the Statement of Claim was defective because it was not signed by a person that is, a named, identifiable legal practitioner. Instead, it was purportedly signed by a firm, which, under earlier judicial authority, would have rendered the process void or incompetent.

● The Supreme Court's Decision

The Supreme Court dismissed the objection and upheld the validity of the Statement of Claim. The Court reasoned that where the name of the law firm is composed solely of the names of enrolled legal practitioners as in "Akeredolu & Olujimi" such a signature is not defective. The rationale was that the individuals whose names comprise the firm are clearly identifiable and undisputedly qualified under the Legal Practitioners Act (LPA) to practice law within Nigeria.

Citing the realities of modern practice, the Court recognized that law firms operate under collective names, many of which are derived from the surnames of their founding or principal partners. Therefore, a document bearing such a name, provided it is not ambiguous or fictitious can be considered to have been signed by persons competent to do so.

♤ Evolution of Judicial Reasoning on Law Firm Signatures

The judgment in Olowe & Anor v. Aluko marks a notable departure from stricter precedents. In earlier cases, Nigerian courts have consistently held that only natural persons who are qualified legal practitioners may sign court processes. For instance, in Okafor v. Nweke (2007) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1043) 521, the Supreme Court unequivocally held that processes not signed by a legal practitioner, or by one whose name is not on the roll of legal practitioners, are incompetent.

The central reasoning in such cases is that only a human being, not a law firm, company, or artificial entity, can be called to the Bar and enrolled as a legal practitioner. Therefore, any signature that does not clearly disclose the identity of the signatory legal practitioner renders the document incurably bad.

By comparison, Olowe & Anor v. Aluko appears to relax this requirement, allowing the collective name of a firm to suffice — provided the firm name is traceable to known lawyers. This represents a significant development and arguably a softening of the rigid formalism of Okafor v. Nweke.

■ Critical Analysis of the Judgment

1. A Step Towards Practicality or a Slide Into Ambiguity?

At first glance, the decision appears to embrace practicality in line with the commercial realities of legal practice. In large firms, it is not uncommon for the principal partners' names to constitute the firm’s identity. This lends a degree of trust and predictability to processes signed in the firm’s name.

However, the ruling also opens the door to ambiguity and potentially erodes the fundamental rule that legal processes must bear the name of a verifiable legal practitioner. If the name of a firm even when made up of known practitioners can replace individual attribution, how do we determine who exactly signed the document? This question becomes even more pressing in cases of professional misconduct, error, or fraud. Who takes responsibility when a document bearing the firm’s name is forged, misused, or incompetently drafted?

2. Distinction Between Business Names and Legal Practitioners

It must be remembered that a law firm, even one named after its founders is not a person. It is often a business name, a partnership, or in some cases a company with limited liability. None of these structures can be called to the Bar. So how does the collective name of a firm confer upon it the capacity to sign processes when the requirement under the LPA is that only a person enrolled as a legal practitioner may do so?

The Court's presumption that such a name inherently implies that a qualified legal practitioner signed it is troubling. Legal obligations and liabilities attach to individuals, not to abstract names. The judgment fails to address whether a staff member, secretary, or even a non-legal employee could sign under the firm’s name without detection, effectively attributing the act to qualified practitioners.

3. Accountability and Professional Discipline

The issue of accountability is perhaps the most concerning. Suppose a process signed in the name of a firm turns out to be fraudulent, improperly filed, or abusive of court process, who gets sanctioned? Would it be every partner in the firm? Or none, because the actual signatory remains unidentified?

This judgment seems to have inadvertently created a loophole. A process bearing the name “Churemi & Osakwe ” may now be presumed valid, even if drafted and signed by an unauthorized intern or clerk. This not only diminishes the seriousness of legal authorship but could open the door to widespread impersonation.

4. Impersonation and Public Confidence

Perhaps the most dangerous consequence of this ruling is the risk of impersonation. Under this new regime, anyone with access to a law firm's letterhead or stamp might generate and file legal documents under the guise of legitimacy. This is not a far-fetched concern there have been known cases where staff or externs purport to act on behalf of a firm without express authorization.

Previously, requiring an identifiable legal practitioner’s name helped ensure that a living, known individual stood behind every document. This facilitated traceability and ensured that missteps could be addressed through appropriate disciplinary mechanisms. That safeguard now appears weakened.

■ Implications Moving Forward

The decision in Olowe & Anor v. Aluko has far-reaching consequences. Law firms may rejoice in the newfound flexibility, but the long-term cost could be the erosion of professional responsibility and procedural clarity.

There are now open questions:

Can anyone sign a process as long as the firm name includes names of enrolled lawyers?

How do we differentiate between an authorized signature and an unauthorized one?

Will courts now entertain disputes over who actually signed a process that bears only a firm name?

Can sanctions be issued when the real signatory cannot be identified?

It is likely that lower courts will soon be faced with testing the boundaries of this decision.

■ Recommendations

In light of the above concerns, it may be necessary for the Supreme Court or the Rules of Court to provide clarifications on the following:

1. Disclosure Requirements: Any process signed in the name of a firm should also include the name of the actual legal practitioner responsible, either in print or by an appended certificate of responsibility.

2. Electronic Authentication: With the growing adoption of e-filing, platforms can require digital identity verification of the submitting lawyer.

3. Firm Responsibility: Law firms should adopt internal controls to regulate who may sign or submit documents under their name.

4. Rules of Professional Conduct Update: The Rules should be revised to address the responsibilities of firms versus individual lawyers when a firm name is used to sign processes.

● Conclusion

The decision in Olowe & Anor v. Aluko (2025) LPELR-81320 (SC) has undoubtedly introduced a more flexible, perhaps more business-friendly approach to the signing of court processes. Yet, this flexibility comes at the cost of accountability, traceability, and the very safeguards that have traditionally protected the integrity of legal practice in Nigeria.

The fact remains that only a person can be a legal practitioner. A firm, no matter how illustrious its name is not called to the Bar and cannot think, act, or err on its own. The assumption that a firm name guarantees that a competent hand prepared a document is legally convenient but logically flawed.

Ultimately, if the legal profession is to preserve its standards and public confidence, the identity and accountability of the actual signatory should never be left to presumption. The apex court’s decision may have been motivated by good intentions, but it has opened a Pandora’s box that calls for urgent and thoughtful closure.
If stamp and seal is seen as the dividng line, don't forget, it is a paper, and can be used, unauthorized.