CORAM

---

KARIBI-WHYTE JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

AGBAJE JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

KARIBI-WHYTE, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT

OBASEKI, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT

UWAIS, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT

AGBAJE, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT

WALI, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT

---

PARTIES

---

BEN OBI NWABUEZE

APPELLANTS 

---

JUSTICE OBI OKOYE

RESPONDENTS 

---

AREA(S) OF LAW

---

CIVILPROCEDURE – TORT – DEFAMATION – SERVICE OF COURT PROCESS – SHERIFF AND CIVIL PROCESS ACT

 

---

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The plaintiff/respondent sued the defendants/appellant for damages for defamation in a High Court of Anambra State in which, according to the plaintiff, the cause of action arose. The defendants, both of which are in Lagos State outside of Anambra State were served the writ of summons through substituted service by registered post. The plaintiff’s counsel applied to set aside the issuance of the writ and service of it. The court of first instance affirmed the issuance of the writ but set aside the service.

 

---

HELD

---

1. That the appellate jurisdiction of supreme court as contained in section 213(1) of the Constitution is to hear and determine appeals from the Court of Appeal. And if a finding of law or of fact in the judgment of the Court of Appeal is not challenged in an appeal that finding stands rightly or wrongly.

2. That the Anambra State High Court which has jurisdiction over the subject-matter of the plaintiffs claim equally has jurisdiction over the defendants against whom the claim is made and who reside in Nigeria although neither of them resides or carries on business in Anambra State.

3. That a condition precedent for the issue of the writ of summons against the defendants who are resident outside the area of territorial jurisdiction of the High Court of Anambra State and who, again, neither of them carries on business within that area of jurisdiction, is that leave of the state high court had to be first obtained before the writ was issued.

 

---

ISSUES

---

1. Whether a plaintiff may issue a writ of summons in Anambra State for an action in defamation in which the cause of action arose in Anambra State against a defendant who neither resides nor carries on business in Anambra State.

2. Whether if a plaintiff can issue the writ of summons in the circumstances described in (1) above, he has first to seek and obtain the leave of the High Court of Anambra State before he can issue the writ of summons.

3. Whether the high court has jurisdiction to treat non-compliance with the mandatory provisions of the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act Cap. 189 Laws of the Federation as a mere irregularity and relieve the plaintiff of the consequences attaching at law to such non-compliance with the provisions of the statute.

 

---

RATIONES DECIDENDI

---

SERVICE OF COURT PROCESSES.

---

‘Generally courts exercise jurisdiction only over persons who are within the territorial limits of their jurisdiction except where there is a submission to the jurisdiction of the court, it has no jurisdiction over a person who has not been served with the writ of summons. The court has no power to order service out of the area of its jurisdiction except where so authorized by statute or other rule having force of statute.’ PER. ABDUL GANIYU OLATUNJI AGBAJE JSC.

 

---

JURISDICTION OF STATE COURTS.

---

‘The jurisdiction of a state court considered solely from the point of view of its jurisdiction over person who are outside the territorial limits of the state, is dependent upon the existence of statutory authority for the service of its process outside those limits.’ PER. ABDUL GANIYU OLATUNJI AGBAJE JSC.

 

---

SERVICE OF COURT PROCESSES

---

‘The issue of a writ of summons and the service of the same writ on a defendant are conditions precedent for the exercise of a court’s jurisdiction over the defendants.’ PER. ABDUL GANIYU OLATUNJI AGBAJE JSC.

 

---

CASES CITED

---

Ezomo v. Oyakhire (1985) 2 SC. 260; (1985) 1 NWLR (Pt. 2) 195

Tassell v. Hallen (1892) 1 Q. B. 321;

Matthews v. Kuwait Bechtel Corporation (1959) 2 Q. B. 57).

Re Busfield (1886), 32 Ch. D.,

Re Anglo African S. S. Co. (1886), 32, Ch. D. at page 350;

Berkeley v. Thompson (1886) 32 Ch.D, at page 350;

Berkeley v. Thompson (1984) 10 App. Cas. At 49;

Ex. p. Blain, Re Sawers (1879) , 12 Ch. D. 522)

Tallack v. Tallack (1927) p. 211, at p. 221)

Mc Donald v. Mabee (1917), 37 Sup. Ct. 343;

Michingan Trust Co. v. Ferry (1913), 33 Sup. Ct. 550, Lorensen 145

Fajinmi v. The Speaker Western House of Assembly (1962) 1 All N.L.R. 205 at 213

Anisminic Ltd. v. The Foreign Compensation Commission & Anor. (1969) 1 All E. R. 208 at p. 233

Sken Consult Nig. Ltd. v. Ukey (1981) 1 S. C. at 26

Madukolu and others v. Nkemdilim (1962)1 All N.L.R. 587 at 594

 

---

STATUTES REFERRED TO

---

Sheriffs and Civil Process Act Cap. 189 Laws of the Federation

Sheriffs & Civil Process Act Cap. 189 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 1958.

Rules of the Supreme Court of England (1960)

High Court Edict of Anambra, No. 16 of 1987

Private International Law. 3rd ed.

 

---

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT