The Supreme Court of Nigeria has reaffirmed that a company, being an artificial legal entity, cannot personally appear or conduct its case in court except through a qualified legal practitioner. This ruling was delivered in the case of MODE (NIG) LTD v. United Bank for Africa (UBA) PLC (2004) LPELR-55287(SC).
Justice Dennis Onyejife Edozie, JSC, delivering the lead judgment, struck out the applicant’s motion on the ground of incompetence, holding that it was filed on behalf of a company by a person who was not a legal practitioner. He emphasized that there is no law in Nigeria that permits a non-lawyer to act as legal representative for a corporate body before any court.
According to the Justice, Section 36(6)(c) and (d) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria guarantees the right of an individual charged with a criminal offence to defend himself in person or through a lawyer of his choice. While that constitutional right applies specifically to criminal matters, Subsection 36(1) extends fair hearing guarantees to civil cases, allowing natural persons to represent themselves or be represented by counsel.
However, the Court noted that this right does not extend to companies, as they are artificial persons without physical presence or capacity to appear in person. Justice Edozie stated:
“The applicant company is an artificial person, which cannot appear in person before this Court. Although in transacting its normal business it acts through agents, there appears to be no law under which it can authorize such agents, other than a legal practitioner, to appear and conduct its case before this Court.”
He cited Section 15(1) of the Supreme Court Act (1960) Cap. 424, Laws of the Federation 1990, which provides that in proceedings before the Supreme Court, parties may appear in person or be represented by a legal practitioner entitled to practice in that court.
Referencing earlier decisions such as Atake v. Afejuku (1994) 9 NWLR (Pt. 368) 379, where Ogwuegbu, JSC, held that a body corporate “may not be able to conduct its case in court without being represented by counsel owing to its inability to appear in person,” the Court further noted that similar principles apply in English law as seen in Frinton & Walton UDC v. Walton & District Land & Mineral Co. Ltd. (1938) 1 All ER 649 and Scriven v. Vescott (Leeds) Ltd. (1908) 53 SCNJ 101.
In conclusion, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that while natural persons may appear in court either personally or through legal representation, a corporate body being an artificial entity can only act through a licensed legal practitioner in all judicial proceedings.
Citation: MODE (NIG) LTD v. UBA PLC (2004) LPELR-55287(SC)
Per: Dennis Onyejife Edozie, JSC (Pages 22–24, Paragraphs A–B).
