Adeneye v. Yaro  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”.
The above position is supported. By the Act, what is important is the name of the legal practitioner and not on his signature.
(Visited 1 times, 1 visits today)