by Taiwo Adetipe Esq

Introduction

The case of Olowe & Anor v. Aluko (2025) LPELR-81320(SC) represents a significant chapter in Nigerian jurisprudence, tracing a legal dispute over land ownership that spans over seven decades. This article examines the crucial issue of procedural compliance with the Legal Practitioners Act. The saga, rooted in a 1950s customary court ruling, unfolds through layers of litigation, culminating in a Supreme Court decision that underscores the importance of adhering to statutory requirements in judicial processes.

Background of the Dispute

The origins of Olowe & Anor v. Aluko date back to 1950, when the ancestors of the Respondent initiated Suit No. 69/50 before the Divisional (Customary) Court in Ilesa, seeking a declaration of title to land. The court ruled in favor of the Respondent’s ancestors, and no appeal was lodged against this judgment. This decision laid the foundation for subsequent disputes, as the land in question, located at Okutuope along Ilesa-Akure Road, remained a contentious issue.
Approximately 30 years later, in 1981, the Appellants’ family filed Suit No. HIL/34/81 at the Ilesa Judicial Division of the High Court of Oyo State, alleging trespass by the Respondent’s family. On July 16, 1982, Justice T. A. A. Ayorinde delivered judgment in favor of the Appellants, awarding N500 in damages for trespass and granting an injunction to restrain further trespass by the Respondent’s family. Dissatisfied, the Respondent appealed in Appeal No. CA/I/118/86 to the Court of Appeal, which overturned the High Court’s decision and issued consequential orders in favor of the Respondent. The Appellants did not appeal this decision.
In 1994, the Respondent instituted Suit No. HIL/66/94 at the Ilesa Judicial Division of the High Court of Osun State, seeking:

A declaration of entitlement to possession of the disputed farmland, as settled by the Court of Appeal in 1993.
N500,000 in damages for trespass by the Appellants.
An injunction restraining the Appellants from further trespass.

The trial court, presided over by Justice Ogunshola, granted all reliefs sought by the Respondent on May 10, 2001. The Appellants appealed to the Court of Appeal, which dismissed the appeal and affirmed the trial court’s decision, leading to the final appeal before the Supreme Court.

The Controversial Issue

The central issue before the Supreme Court in Olowe & Anor v. Aluko was whether the Court of Appeal erred in affirming the High Court’s judgment, given the Appellants’ contention that the Respondent’s Statement of Claim was incompetent. The Appellants argued that the Statement of Claim, signed by the law firm “Akeredolu & Olujimi” rather than an individual legal practitioner, violated the Legal Practitioners Act, rendering the claim and evidence led on it nullities.

Supreme Court’s Decision

The Supreme Court held that the Writ of Summons was signed by Akin Olujimi, Esq., and the Statement of Claim bore the signatures of both Akeredolu and Olujimi, both of whom were undisputedly qualified legal practitioners enrolled to practice in Nigeria. The Court ruled that the signing of the Statement of Claim was not defective, as the signatories’ names were clearly identifiable as belonging to duly qualified legal practitioners under the Legal Practitioners Act. The Court emphasized that once a name on a legal process is identifiable as that of a person enrolled as a legal practitioner, the statutory requirements are satisfied, and the process is valid.

Juxtaposition with Okafor & Ors v. Nweke & Ors (2025) LPELR-80294(SC)

The Supreme Court’s decision in Olowe & Anor v. Aluko contrasts sharply with Okafor & Ors v. Nweke & Ors (2025) LPELR-80294(SC), which addressed a similar issue of procedural compliance. In Okafor, the Further/Additional Grounds of Appeal were signed in the name of “J. H. C. Okolo, SAN & Co.,” without identifying the specific legal practitioner who signed the document. The Supreme Court held that this rendered the process incompetent, as Sections 2(1) and 24 of the Legal Practitioners Act require that only a person whose name appears on the Roll of Legal Practitioners can sign judicial processes. The Court reiterated that a signature without a clearly identifiable name is “incurably bad,” and no court rule can override this statutory requirement.
The distinction between the two cases lies in the clarity of identification. In Olowe, the signatories (Akeredolu and Olujimi) were identifiable as enrolled legal practitioners, satisfying the Legal Practitioners Act. In Okafor, the use of a law firm’s name without specifying an individual practitioner violated the Act, rendering the process invalid. The Supreme Court in Okafor relied on precedents such as SLB Consortium Ltd. v. NNPC (2011) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1252) 317, which established that a valid judicial process must include:

• The signature of counsel.
• The name of counsel clearly written.
• The party counsel represents.
• The name and address of the legal firm.

Failure to meet these requirements, particularly the identification of a specific legal practitioner, renders the process null and void.

Reflection: A Memoir of the Future Past

The Olowe & Anor v. Aluko case is a testament to the enduring nature of land disputes in Nigeria, where customary and statutory laws intersect, often leading to protracted litigation. The dispute, originating in 1950, reflects a “future past” where historical rulings continue to shape contemporary legal battles. The Supreme Court’s emphasis on procedural compliance underscores a critical lesson: adherence to statutory requirements, such as those in the Legal Practitioners Act, is not a mere technicality but a matter of substantive law. This principle ensures the integrity of judicial processes and upholds the rule of law.
The contrast with Okafor highlights the judiciary’s commitment to consistency in enforcing statutory provisions. While Olowe validated a process signed by identifiable practitioners, Okafor invalidated one signed by an ambiguous entity, reinforcing the need for precision in legal documentation. Together, these cases serve as a cautionary tale for legal practitioners to meticulously comply with statutory requirements, lest years of litigation be undone by procedural oversights.

Conclusion

Olowe & Anor v. Aluko is more than a legal precedent; it is a narrative of persistence, family legacy, and the evolution of Nigerian jurisprudence. The case reminds us that the past is never truly past—it lingers in courtrooms, shaping the future through the lens of justice. For legal practitioners, the memoir of this case is a clarion call to uphold procedural rigor, ensuring that the wheels of justice turn smoothly in the face of disputes that span generations.