Adeneye v. Yaro [2013] 3 NWLR (Pt. 1342) 625 at 632, para. H, per Jauro, JCA:
“By a combined effect of the aforementioned (sections 2(1) and 24) of the Legal Practitioners Act, it is clear that the person who is entitled to practice as a legal practitioner must have had his name on the roll. It does not say that his signature must be on the roll but his name”.
Blogger’s Note:
The above position is supported. By the Act, what is important is the name of the legal practitioner and not on his signature.
