Introduction
Legal Status of Names in Nigerian Law
Names are powerful markers of identity. They reflect family heritage, marriage, status, profession, and sometimes personal conviction. Yet, in law, a name is fundamentally a label of identification and not the source of rights or obligations.
Nigerian courts have repeatedly affirmed a broad principle: a person is free to adopt, retain, or change a name, and such change does not extinguish legal rights or invalidate lawful proceedings.
This principle cuts across several branches of law, including constitutional law, company law, electoral law, and matrimonial proceedings.
1. No Monopoly of Names in Nigeria
In AJENE v. AJENE & ANOR (2022) LPELR-57536(CA), the Court of Appeal reaffirmed a long-standing position that no individual or family has exclusive ownership of a name.
The Court held:
“In my considered but humble view, anybody who fancies a name or title for whatever reason is free to adopt same. Even within the same family, the same name is used by different members of the same family, as often as the members of the family want or others outside the family as they desire. In OFFOBOCHE V OFFOBOCHE (2006) 13 NWLR (Pt. 997) Page 298 at 304 para. E and 306 para. B.the Court held: ‘‘No person, group of persons or family has a monopoly of names. Persons have unrestrained liberty to pick and choose names that please them….No legislation in Nigeria restricts a person to a fixed number of names. In effect, even if names are identical or same, no person in Nigeria has a legal right to restrain another person from answering or bearing those names’’ In Alliance For Democracy v. Fayose & Ors (2005) 10 NWLR (Pt.932) 151 at 192-193cited and relied upon by the lower Court, per Nsofor JCA stated: ’’And I ask what really is in a name culldcus non facit monachum now ‘name’ derived from Latin nomen nominis in its form (see Chambers Twentieth Century Dictionary at Page 875) is defined to mean ‘‘That by which a person or a thing is known or called, a designation. Of what concern or to whom does it matter if ‘A’ choses to be called or known by many; or very many names. I confess that I know of no legislation or a decree in Nigeria restricting any person(s) to a number of names he may be called or known by. No such law………’’ The Appellant is capitalizing on the similarity of name without more that cannot confer title to him, no evidence in support of his claim he want to reap the fruits of a transaction in which he was not shown to be involved in, the case of Alliance for Democracy v. Fayose & Ors (Supra) relied upon by the learned trial Judge is useful and applicable to the case at hand contrary to the submission of learned Counsel for the Appellant.”
Per MUSLIM SULE HASSAN, JCA (Pp 53 – 55 Paras D – B)
The position is unequivocal. Nigerian law does not grant a monopoly over names.
2. Change of Name Is Not Forgery
In the electoral context, the Court of Appeal in AJA & ANOR v. UKPAI & ORS (2023) LPELR-61234(CA)addressed whether an invalid change of name amounts to forgery.
The Court stated:
“The next question is whether a change of name is prohibited in law in Nigeria and for the purposes of contesting an election under the Electoral Act 2022 is a change of name, or even an invalid change of name, a cognizable ground for the presentation of a petition under Section 134(1) of the Electoral Act 2022? I certainly do not think so! What then is prohibited under Section 107 (c) of the Constitution of Nigeria 1999 (as amended)? It is the forgery and or presentation of forged documents by a candidate to the electoral umpire, INEC, and not a mere change of name. The case of the Appellants as revealed in the evidence in the records of appeal is one founded not on forged documents or presentation of forged document by the 1st Respondent to the 3rd Respondent but merely on change of name by the 1st Respondent, and the pertinent question is this, namely: is a change of name by a person, even if invalid, proof of or tantamount to forgery to come under the provision of Section 107 (1) of the Constitution of Nigeria 1999 (as amended)? I think not.”
Per BIOBELE ABRAHAM GEORGEWILL, JCA (Pp 34 – 35 Paras C – B)
A change of name, even if procedurally flawed, is not equivalent to forgery.
3. Change of Name Does Not Affect Legal Rights: Corporate Context
The same principle applies to corporate entities.
Under Section 30(6) of the Companies and Allied Matters Act, 2020, (previously Section 31(6) of the Companies and Allied Matters Act, 1990),a change of name does not affect a company’s rights or obligations.
The Court of Appeal affirmed this in NAGARTA INTEGRATED FARMS LTD v. NAGODA & ORS (2016) LPELR-40266(CA):
“As pointed out by the Appellant’s Counsel and which I agree with, by Section 31(6) of the Companies and Allied Matters Act Supra, the change of name does not affect its rights and obligations under the former names or render defective any legal proceedings by or against it.”
Per OLUDOTUN ADEBOLA ADEFOPE-OKOJIE, JCA (Pp 11 – 11 Paras A – B)
Similarly, in SAMBAWA FARMS LTD & ANOR v. BANK OF AGRICULTURE LTD (2015) LPELR-25939(CA), the Court held:
“As rightly submitted by the Counsel to the Respondent, the Respondent was allowed by law as stated in Section 31(3) of the Companies and Allied Matters Act, 1990, to change its name with the consent and approval of the Corporate Affairs Commission and that Section 31(6) of the Act stipulates that any such change of name shall not affect any rights or obligations of the company, or render defective any legal proceedings by or against the company, and that any legal proceedings that could have been continued or commenced by it or against it in its former name, may be continued or commenced by it or against it in the new name. The law thus recognized the right of the Respondent to change its name and to thereafter commence an action in its new name in respect of transactions entered into and carried out in its old name.”
Per HABEEB ADEWALE OLUMUYIWA ABIRU, JCA (Pp 44 – 44 Paras B – E)
The statutory framework and judicial interpretation are aligned. Identity persists despite change of name.
4. Personal Identity and Marital Names
In matrimonial proceedings, the Court of Appeal in ABIKOYE v. ABIKOYE (2022) LPELR-58779(CA)affirmed that a woman’s change of name does not affect her legal standing.
The Court held:
“The contentious issue is whether the applicant’s name at birth is still her name for purposes of this Petition. I dare say without fear of contradiction that a woman’s maiden name should be more permanent. A woman’s marital name might change after each divorce as it pleases the woman. However, at any such change of name shall not affect any rights or obligations of the woman or render defective any legal proceedings by or against her, and that any legal proceedings that could have been continued or commenced by her or against her former name, may be continued or commenced by her or against her in her new name. The law thus recognized the right of the woman to change her name and to thereafter, commence an action in her new name in respect of transactions entered into and carried out in her old name.”
Per UZO IFEYINWA NDUKWE-ANYANWU, JCA (Pp 8 – 9 Paras F – D)
The Emerging Unified Principle
Across personal, corporate, and electoral law, the courts have consistently affirmed:
1. A person is free to adopt or retain any name of choice.
2. No one has a monopoly over names.
3. A change of name does not extinguish rights.
4. A change of name does not invalidate legal proceedings.
5. A change of name is not, without more, forgery.
What matters in law is identity and authenticity, not rigidity of nomenclature.
Practical Implications
The judicial position carries practical implications:
• Individuals may adopt new names without losing previously acquired rights.
• Legal proceedings commenced in an earlier name remain valid.
• Corporate name changes do not affect existing liabilities or contractual obligations.
• Allegations of forgery require proof beyond mere change of name.
Change of name is often formalised through an affidavit of change of name and publication in a national newspaper.
Conclusion
The Nigerian legal system recognises autonomy in matters of naming. Whether in private life, corporate existence, or political participation, the courts have protected the principle that a name may change, but rights and obligations endure.
Identity follows the person or entity. The label may evolve.
Disclaimer:
This article is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The application of legal principles depends on the specific facts of each case. Readers should consult a qualified legal practitioner for advice tailored to their circumstances.
If you found this helpful, please share it on social media — it only takes a click.