Portrait supplied by the author
A lawyer, representing a client, issued a Preliminary Notice to Obafemi Awolowo University (OAU) regarding alleged irregularities in the university’s Post-UTME system. In response, the University’s Legal unit objecting the notice, stating that the lawyer’s NBA Seal on the document had expired since
2024 and was therefore invalid for 2025.
Additionally, the University affixed a green-colored stamp on its reply, raising legal and ethical concerns about the validity and nature of this stamp. This situation raises two main issues: (1) the legal effect of an expired NBA stamp on the validity of the preaction notice, and (2) the appropriateness and legal implications of using a green stamp in an official government letter.
ISSUE 1:
Whether the Pre-action notice signed by a lawyer bearing an expired NBA stamp is invalid or improper.
This question considers whether accepting a document with an NBA stamp from the previous year is lawful. The ruling would clarify if procedural rules impact justice, especially concerning administrative notices before litigation begins.
The Legal Position (LSP111: "Legal Position on Expired NBA Stamps," June 29, 2023) outlines reasons and the judicial stance on expired stamps. The NBA stamp serves as proof that documents originate from legitimate lawyers, not forgeries(See their website).
In the case Rosolu v. FRN cited in CBN v. Eze & Anor (2021), the court stated that stamping aims to prevent forgeries and validate lawyer documents.
However, in Emechebe v. Ceto International (Nig) Ltd (2017), the Supreme Court held that a document bearing an expired stamp but containing the lawyer’s name and enrollment number is not invalid but inconsistent, which can be corrected with a current stamp.
A Pre-action notice is not a court document filed in court, therefore, court stamping rules do not strictly apply.
Even if rules applied, using an expired stamp does not nullify the document. Courts have held the presence of the lawyer's name and his SC number in the stamp sufficiently authenticates the document.
The University’s claim that the lawyer “lacks authority to write” because the 2024 seal is invalid is misplaced. The Seal confirms lawyer status, not to invalidate a valid letter.
Rejecting the notice on this basis elevates form over substance, which courts have consistently rejected.
The Pre-action notice to the University is valid and acceptable. The expired Seal does not remove the lawyer’s status nor render the document void. The University’s refusal is legally baseless and contradicts the spirit of justice, as shown in Emechebe and Today’s Car Ltd cases.
ISSUE 2:
Whether the Obafemi Awolowo University Legal Unit, having affixed a green NBA seal on its reply letter, can validly question another lawyer’s expired seal.
This issue reveals conflicting professional practices and risks selective legal application. It questions whether a government agency can improve its position by scrutinizing another lawyer’s stamp while using a non-compliant stamp itself.
The Legal Position reiterates that the NBA stamp confirms the lawyer’s name, enrollment number, and seal validity. The NBA issues different stamps: green for private practitioners and red for government employees or company lawyers.
The reason, noted in Rosolu v. FRN, is to ensure authenticity and ethics, not enforce meaningless rules. Courts also reject rigid rule reliance.
The University Legal Unit's staff are government employees (per RPC rule 8(1)(2)). According to NBA policy, such lawyers must use the red government stamp. However, in their October 4, 2025 reply, they used a green stamp, which is for private lawyers.
This violates their own rule that they applied to reject the preliminary notice. This inconsistency undermines their argument about the stamp.
One who breaks a rule cannot use that rule to invalidate others applications. This shows that stamp inconsistency is not mandatory and rejects their previous logic.
Using a green instead of red government stamp is professional inconsistency and unethical. After breaching this rule, the Legal Department’s rejection undermines its credibility.
According to Emechebe and Today’s Car Ltd cases, such technical challenges should be dismissed in favor of meaningful justice and fairness in professional practice.
The OAU Legal Department’s response to the preliminary notice lacks legal basis. The lawyer’s notice is valid despite the expired stamp. The University’s reply carries an improper stamp, revealing inconsistency in their argument.
This case demonstrates the need for professionalism and rejection of rigid rules that obstruct justice.
In the end, this incident reflects a deeper need for professional awareness and procedural fairness within our institutions. While compliance with NBA regulations is vital, it should never be used as a technical weapon to silence substance. The law should serve justice, not bureaucracy .
(I stand to be Guided).
.
Umar Sanusi Garba Kakambaina, Law Student from Kano, Nigeria. Can be reached at talk2umarsgk@gmail.com) or phone 08081153649.
#nbaseal
#umarsanusigarba #facilitator #kalambaina4lawsan #kalambaina4sug #lextechclub #law #nba
Author’s views are published for discussion and do not necessarily represent the views of Innovative Bar. Readers should consult the primary legal materials and obtain professional advice where appropriate.
About the Author
