Representative Capacity

To start with, the issue of representation by counsel is a matter of counsel-client relationship, which this Court cannot get involved in – see the case of Chief M.K.O Abiola V. F R N (1996) LPELR-40 (SC), wherein this Court, per Belgore, JSC (as he then was) said as follows-
The best person to decide who represents him ... is the Appellant, and that is his constitutional right. Time honoured practice is for this issue of representation to be decided by counsel after consulting the Appellant, or the Appellant writing to intimate his choice of counselor It is always a privilege, the matter of counsel-client relationship, and I do not believe it is right to involve the Court in this.
What is more, where there is no averment that the authority of the counsel to conduct the case on a party's behalf has been withdrawn, it is accepted that counsel had general or apparent authority to so do – see Afegbai v. A-G., Edo State (2001) 14 NWLR (Pt. 733) 425 SC.

As regards the contention of the 5th co-appellant regarding the representative capacity of the 2nd and 4th appellants, I have considered the authority of Otapo Vs Sunmonu (1987) 2 NWLR (Pt.58) 587 relied on by learned senior counsel. The law as espoused in that case is as follows:
"a representative plaintiff is the sole plaintiff is Dominus litis until judgment. He can discontinue, compromise, submit to dismissal and other things as he decides during the Court of the proceedings.
If he falls out with any of the represented parties for any reason, the Court has power to add or substitute any person represented though unnamed in the representative action and to bring him in as at the date of the original writ... Where several sue, they have the like power as a single representative plaintiff, but they must act together."
@ 604 F-G per Obaseki, JSC.

The law is settled beyond any argument that a person must have the requisite legal capacity to be a party to a legal suit. See Fawehinmi v. NBA (No. 2) (1989) 2 NWLR (Pt. 105) 558; Isa v. Amakiri (1976) 11 SC 1 at 8- 9; Kwara Hotels Ltd v. Ishola (2002) 9 NWLR (pt. 773) 604 at 622 – 623. Where the legal capacity of a party to a suit s challenged, the only way that such challenge can be rebutted is by production of a Certificate of Incorporation, where the party so challenged is not a human being, but a company or a body subject to registration by law. SeeACB v. Emostrade Ltd (2002) 8 NWLR (pt. 770) 501; Registered Trustees of Apostolic Church v. A-G Mid-West Nigeria (1972) NSCC (Vol. 7) 247.