‘Two Weeks, Two Conflicting Judgments’ — Lawyer Flags Supreme Court Contradictions In Menakaya V. Ezim And Olowe V. Aluko
A young Nigerian lawyer, Ukomah Chukwuemeka Eze Maxwell, has raised concerns on X over what he described as conflicting Supreme Court judgments delivered within weeks of each other, igniting discussions among legal practitioners.
In a post shared on Thursday, Maxwell highlighted two Supreme Court cases with divergent rulings regarding the competency of originating processes signed by legal practitioners.
The first case, Menakaya v. Ezim (2025), delivered on August 25, 2025, involved an originating process signed by J.H.C. Okolo SAN & Co. The Supreme Court, in its judgment, declared that both the originating process and ancillary documents were incompetent, thereby depriving the trial court, the Court of Appeal, and the Supreme Court of jurisdiction to hear the matter. The Court ultimately allowed the appeal and set aside the lower court’s decision in Appeal No. CA/E/131/2004 delivered on March 29, 2019.
Maxwell noted, “By the decision of this court in Okafor & Ors. v. Nweke & Ors., both the originating process which is the bedrock of the suit—and other ancillary processes filed by J.H.C. Okolo SAN & Co. are incompetent. This robbed the trial court of jurisdiction to entertain the suit.”
In contrast, the second case, Olowe v. Aluko (2025), delivered on August 11, 2025, addressed a similar procedural issue. In this matter, the writ of summons was signed by Akin Olujimi, Esq., while the accompanying statement of claim bore signatures of Akeredolu and Olujimi, all duly enrolled legal practitioners. The Supreme Court held that the documents were competent, emphasizing that the endorsement of qualified practitioners satisfied statutory requirements under the Legal Practitioners Act.
“The names of the signatories are clearly identifiable as belonging to persons duly qualified and entitled to practice law under the Legal Practitioners Act. The statement of claim as filed was competent, and the trial court properly received and acted on the evidence,” the judgment stated.
Maxwell drew attention to the fact that one of the law firms involved in Menakaya v. Ezim belongs to a former Attorney General of the Federation, highlighting the high-profile nature of the dispute.
The post prompted reactions from several legal professionals. Lawyer Ndubuisi Ukpai (@UkpaiNdubuisi1) commented, “When Olowe v Aluko first came out, we had a heated argument about it in the office. Then came Menakaya v Ezim. Thank you for drawing it out again, Counsel.”
Meanwhile, Chidi Odinkalu, former Chairman of the National Human Rights Commission (@ChidiOdinkalu), retweeted Maxwell’s post, noting the apparent inconsistency: “One issue, 2 different cases, 2 different judgments, 2 weeks apart, 2 contradictory outcomes. #GoFigure!”
