DR. AJEWUMI BILI RAJI V. UNIVERSITY OF ILORIN (2018)

Background

Dr. Ajewumi Bili Raji was a senior lecturer in the Faculty of Arts at the University of Ilorin. In February 2000, he received the Alexander Von Humboldt Research Fellowship, tenable in Germany. He applied to the University for leave to take advantage of the fellowship, and his application was supported by his Head of Department and the Dean of the Faculty. Because the relevant university committee was not expected to meet before his proposed departure date, Dr. Raji also applied directly to the Vice-Chancellor for executive approval.

The Vice-Chancellor had not responded by 29 March 2000, when Dr. Raji left Nigeria for Germany. Shortly after his departure, the University directed that his salary be stopped and accused him of absconding from duty. Disciplinary proceedings followed. He was later directed to return to the University by 21 December 2000. The letter communicating that directive was received by him in Germany on 19 December, leaving only two days to comply. When he failed to return, his employment was terminated.

Dr. Raji commenced proceedings by originating summons, challenging the termination on the ground that the University of Ilorin Act and the constitutional guarantee of fair hearing had not been complied with. The trial court dismissed his claim. The Court of Appeal affirmed that decision. He then appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the disciplinary process and termination were unlawful.

Preliminary Objection and Issue

Before considering the substantive complaints concerning the University of Ilorin Act, fair hearing, delegation of disciplinary powers and the termination of employment, the respondents raised a preliminary objection. They argued that the notice of appeal was incompetent because it had not been signed by the appellant or by an identifiable legal practitioner qualified to practise in Nigeria.

The central issue was whether a notice of appeal bearing an illegible or unidentified signature, purportedly made on behalf of named counsel, could validly institute an appeal and confer jurisdiction on the Supreme Court.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court unanimously upheld the preliminary objection and struck out the appeal. It held that a notice of appeal is the originating process and foundation of an appeal. It must be signed either by the appellant personally or by a legal practitioner representing the appellant. Where counsel signs it, the identity of the signatory must be discernible and the signatory must be a legal practitioner recognized and qualified to practise in Nigeria.

The Court emphasized that a signature cannot be treated as valid merely because an affidavit is later filed identifying the person who allegedly made it. The process itself must disclose, in a legally acceptable manner, the identity of the person who signed it. A signature may be illegible in the ordinary sense, but the name of the legal practitioner must be clearly written or otherwise sufficiently indicated. A mere scribble made “for” another counsel, without identifying the actual person who signed, does not satisfy the legal requirement.

Since the notice of appeal was not signed by Dr. Raji and did not reveal the identity of the person who purportedly signed it for Dayo Akinlaja SAN, it was void and had no legal existence. The defect was fundamental, not a curable technical irregularity. Without a valid notice of appeal, no appeal had been properly initiated, and the Supreme Court lacked jurisdiction to examine the substantive grounds of appeal.

Court Findings

Peter-Odili JSC, delivering the lead judgment, rejected the appellant’s reliance on an affidavit by Miss Temitope Odedele, who claimed to have signed the notice in her capacity as a legal practitioner in the chambers representing the appellant. The Court held that section 101 of the Evidence Act, 2011, concerning comparison of signatures, could not be used to rescue a process that was fundamentally defective at inception. The Court was not required to conduct an investigation into the identity of an unknown signatory before determining whether the appeal was competent.

Rhodes-Vivour JSC reiterated that an unsigned or improperly signed notice of appeal is worthless and a complete nullity. He explained that the accepted form of counsel’s signature on a court process requires the signature, the clearly written name of counsel, an indication of whom counsel represents, and the name and address of the legal firm. Okoro JSC stressed that a notice cannot validly be signed by “someone” on behalf of a legal practitioner whose name appears on the process. Sanusi JSC similarly held that the defective notice invalidated the appeal in its entirety and deprived the Court of jurisdiction. Bage JSC agreed with the reasoning and conclusion.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court allowed the respondents’ preliminary objection, held that the notice of appeal was invalid and incompetent, and struck out the appeal. The Court made no order as to costs. Because the appeal failed at the jurisdictional threshold, the Supreme Court did not determine whether the University had complied with the University of Ilorin Act or whether Dr. Raji’s termination violated his right to fair hearing.

Significance

The decision reinforces the strict procedural importance of a notice of appeal in Nigerian appellate practice. It confirms that jurisdiction depends upon the existence of a valid initiating process and that courts cannot overlook uncertainty regarding the identity of the person who signed such a process. Parties and legal practitioners must therefore ensure that notices of appeal and other originating processes are signed in a manner that clearly identifies the authorized legal practitioner. An affidavit filed after the event cannot ordinarily cure an incurable defect that makes the initiating document a nullity.