FESTUS EDEGWA V THE STATE
February 28, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (2024-09) Legalpedia 64786 (SC)
In the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Holden at Abuja
Fri Jul 12, 2024
Suit Number: SC.302/2018
CORAM
mohammed garba-Justice of supreme court
emmanuel akomaye agim-Justice of supreme court
chioma egondu nwosu-iheme-Justice of supreme court
haruna simon tsammani-Justice of supreme court
jamilu yammama tukur-Justice of supreme court
PARTIES
MACFRANKLYN ENGINEERING & SERVICES
APPELLANTS
1. DAEWOO NIGERIA LIMITED
2. CHRIS IHEAGWARA
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
• Contract Law
• Civil Procedure
• Jurisdiction
• Garnishee Proceedings
• Nullity of Judgment
• Practice and Procedure
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The appellant, MacFranklyn Engineering & Services, filed suit No. EHC/436/2000 against Daewoo Nigeria Limited (1st respondent) seeking reliefs based on breach of contract. After several delays by the respondents, the case was relisted in 2006 and heard in 2009 without the attendance of the 1st respondent, despite being served notice. The trial court entered judgment in favor of the appellant and granted their reliefs.
Subsequently, the appellant obtained a garnishee order nisi attaching the sum of N15,056,534.41 standing to the credit of the 1st respondent in Zenith Bank. The 1st respondent filed a motion to set aside the judgment and stay the garnishee proceedings, but the trial court dismissed the motion for being incompetent due to its late filing. Dissatisfied, the 1st respondent appealed to the Court of Appeal, which set aside the trial court’s judgment on the grounds of non-service of the motion to relist the suit on the 1st respondent. The Court of Appeal ruled that the trial court lacked jurisdiction, as the relisting was done without proper service on the 1st respondent.
The appellant further appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the Court of Appeal lacked jurisdiction to set aside the trial court’s judgment and that the motion to set aside the judgment was filed outside the required time frame.
HELD
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the judgment of the Court of Appeal. The Supreme Court held that the Court of Appeal erred by determining the issue of non-service, which was not properly raised before the trial court. The Court of Appeal also acted without jurisdiction by entertaining the matter outside the grounds of appeal raised. The Supreme Court restored the ruling of the trial court, which dismissed the motion to set aside the judgment as incompetent for being filed out of time.
ISSUES
1.Whether the Court of Appeal was justified in setting aside the ruling of the trial court on the grounds of lack of service on the 1st respondent.
2 Whether the Court of Appeal was correct in ruling that time does not run against setting aside a judgment that is a nullity
RATIONES DECIDENDI
SERVICE OF PROCESS – THE ESSENTIALITY OF PROPER SERVICE TO ESTABLISH JURISDICTION
“Service of process on the defendant is fundamental, as failure to serve the defendant deprives the court of jurisdiction. However, in this case, there was conflicting evidence regarding whether proper service of the relisting motion occurred, and the Court of Appeal failed to resolve this issue properly before setting aside the judgment.” – Per Emmanuel Akomaye Agim JSC
BREACH OF CONTRACT – RIGHT TO DAMAGES FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT
“The appellant had proven their case of breach of contract against the 1st respondent, and the trial court was right to award damages in their favor. The 1st respondent’s absence during the hearing was due to their own conduct, and they could not challenge the judgment after it was delivered.” – Per Emmanuel Akomaye Agim JSC
TIME LIMITS – THE NECESSITY OF FILING WITHIN TIME LIMITS UNDER CIVIL PROCEDURE RULES
“The Delta State High Court Civil Procedure Rules clearly prescribe a 6-day period within which to apply to set aside a default judgment. The 1st respondent’s failure to apply for an extension of time rendered their application incompetent.” – Per Mohammed Lawal Garba JSC
GARNISHEE PROCEEDINGS – JUDGMENT CREDITOR’S RIGHT TO ENFORCE A JUDGMENT THROUGH GARNISHEE ORDERS
“A judgment creditor has the right to enforce a valid judgment through garnishee proceedings, as long as the judgment is not set aside. The garnishee order issued in favor of the appellant was valid, and the 1st respondent’s challenge was filed out of time.” – Per Chioma Egondu Nwosu-Iheme JSC
NULLITY OF JUDGMENTS – WHEN TIME DOES NOT RUN AGAINST SETTING ASIDE A NULL JUDGMENT
“The principle that time does not run against setting aside a null judgment applies only when the judgment is shown to be a nullity due to lack of jurisdiction. In this case, the trial court had jurisdiction, and the 1st respondent failed to prove that the judgment was a nullity.” – Per Haruna Simon Tsammani JSC
EXTENSION OF TIME – FAILURE TO APPLY FOR EXTENSION OF TIME RENDERS AN APPLICATION INCOMPETENT
“The 1st respondent failed to apply for an extension of time within which to file their motion to set aside the judgment. Without such an application, the trial court had no discretion to entertain the motion.” – Per Mohammed Lawal Garba JSC
PROOF OF SERVICE – BURDEN OF PROVING SERVICE OF PROCESS RESTS ON THE PARTY ALLEGING SERVICE
The burden of proving service rests on the party asserting that service was properly effected. In this case, the 1st respondent failed to provide conclusive proof of non-service, and the Court of Appeal was wrong to rely on conflicting evidence without resolving the issue of service.” – Per Jamilu Yammama Tukur JSC
RES JUDICATA – FINALITY OF JUDGMENTS NOT APPEALED OR SET ASIDE
“The judgment of the trial court was not appealed in time, and the application to set it aside was filed outside the prescribed period. Since no valid application to set aside the judgment was made, the judgment remained final and binding.” – Per Emmanuel Akomaye Agim JSC
SETTING ASIDE JUDGMENTS – REQUIREMENTS FOR SETTING ASIDE A DEFAULT JUDGMENT
“To set aside a default judgment, the applicant must not only show that they were not served, but they must also comply with the procedural rules for filing such an application, including applying for an extension of time if needed.” – Per Chioma Egondu Nwosu-Iheme JSC
COURT OF APPEAL – LIMITATION OF JURISDICTION TO ISSUES RAISED IN GROUNDS OF APPEAL
The Court of Appeal exceeded its jurisdiction by addressing the issue of non-service, which was not properly raised in the grounds of appeal. The Court of Appeal’s decision was, therefore, a nullity.” – Per Emmanuel Akomaye Agim JSC
APPLICATIONS – CONSEQUENCE OF FILING APPLICATIONS OUT OF TIME
“Where an application is filed outside the time prescribed by the rules of court, and there is no application for an extension of time, the court lacks the discretion to entertain the application. The trial court rightly dismissed the 1st respondent’s application.” – Per Haruna Simon Tsammani JSC
RELISTING OF SUITS – IMPORTANCE OF SERVING NOTICE OF RELISTING
“The relisting of a suit after it has been struck out is akin to the commencement of a fresh action and requires proper service on the defendant. Failure to serve such notice deprives the court of jurisdiction.” – Per Jamilu Yammama Tukur JSC
NON-SERVICE – JURISDICTIONAL IMPLICATIONS OF NON-SERVICE OF PROCESS
“Non-service of process is a fundamental procedural irregularity that vitiates proceedings and deprives the court of jurisdiction. The Court of Appeal failed to address whether the 1st respondent was properly served with the motion to relist the suit.” – Per Mohammed Lawal Garba JSC
CASES CITED
STATUTES REFERRED TO
• Delta State High Court Civil Procedure Rules, 2009
• Banking and Other Financial Institutions Act, 2020
• Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999
• Supreme Court Act, 2004
