CORAM

---

---

PARTIES

---

TREASURE LINE INTERLINK LIMITED APPELLANTS

---

AKINOLA OLABODE TAOREED RESPONDENTS

---

AREA(S) OF LAW

---

---

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The Plaintiff/Claimant/Judgment Creditor now Respondent before this Court instituted his action in the High Court of Justice, Oyo State in the Ibadan Judicial division, against the Appellant through the summary Judgment procedure wherein he claimed (N48, 350,000.00) Forty-Eight Million, Three Hundred and Fifty Thousand Naira. With the leave of Court, the Appellant was served the Court processes through substituted means i.e. by pasting same on the last known address of the Appellant at suit G7, Akande Shopping Complex, behind Lagos Garage, Sango Ibadan. The lower Court entered Judgment in favour of the Respondent on the 15th of March 2010 after the Appellant had failed to defend the suit within the time allowed by the Rules of the Court. The Respondent consequently initiated Garnishee Proceedings against eight Garnishees, while the 1st, 3rd, 4th and 7th Garnishees were discharged by the lower Court, the Garnishee Order Nisi issued by the lower Court against the 2nd and 6th Garnishees were made absolute on the 13th of April 2011. The Appellant later filed an application to set aside the Judgment of the lower Court. The lower Court heard the application and delivered its Ruling dismissing the application. The Appellant who is dissatisfied with the said Ruling of the lower Court, has appealed to this Court contending that Section 78 of the Companies and Allied Matters Act, stipulated the proper mode of service of court processes on a company but the mode of service of process by substituted means effected on the Appellant is bad in law.

---

HELD

---

Appeal Allowed

---

ISSUES

---

Whether the learned trial Judge was wrong in dismissing the Defendant/Appellant’s application to set aside the Judgment delivered against it on the 15th day of March 2010.

---

RATIONES DECIDENDI

---

SERVICE OF ORIGINATING PROCESS- EFFECT OF A FAILURE TO SERVE ORIGINATING PROCESS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAW

---

“It is settled law that service of Originating Process on a party to a proceeding is a fundamental and imperative step in the process of adjudication by a Court of law. It is what ignites or gives vent to the jurisdiction of the Court to entertain the matter and make order that will be valid and subsisting. Therefore, it is not an issue of exercise of discretion by the Court because where Originating Process is not served in accordance with the law; it deprives the Court of the requisite jurisdiction to proceed with the hearing of the matter.
In the case of Mark Vs. Eke (2004) 5 NWLR Part 865 Page 54, the Supreme Court held among others that:-
Service of the process especially Originating Process is an essential condition for the Court to have competence or jurisdiction to entertain the matter. Further failure to comply with this condition would render the whole proceeding including Judgment entered and all subsequent proceedings based thereon wholly irregular, null and void.
See also Skenconsult (Nigeria) Ltd & Another Vs. Ukey (1981) LPELR 3072 SC. ”
–

---

SERVICE OF COURT PROCESS ON A COMPANY – WHETHER THE SERVICE OF A COURT PROCESS ON A COMPANY CAN BE EFFECTED BY SUBSTITUTED MEANS, BY PASTING AT THE PREMISES OF THE LAST KNOWN ADDRESS OF THE COMPANY

---

“The Company and Allied Matters Act by Section 78 made provision on how to serve documents generally on any company Registered under it. By this a Court Process is served on a company in the manner provided by the Rules of Court. A service on a company must be at the registered office of the company, and it is therefore bad and ineffective if it is done at a branch office of the company or pasting it at the last known place of abode. A company is not a human being. The appropriate procedure is by giving the Originating Processes to any:-
Director
Trustee
Secretary or
Other Principal Officer at the registered office of the company or by leaving the document with a human being who must acknowledge receipt of it by endorsing on the document that it was left with him, which was not the case in this appeal under consideration.” –

---

SERVICE OF COURT PROCESS- IMPLICATION OF A FAILURE TO EFFECT SERVICE OF COURT PROCESS WHERE SAME IS REQUIRED

---

“It is trite that service of Court process (Originating Process Inclusive) is a crucial part of the adjudication process. It is the law that failure to effect service of a Court process where required constitutes a fundamental defect. It goes to the root and lack of same deprives the Court the legal capacity and competence to hear and determine the matter.
See Emeka Vs. Okoroafor & Ors. (2017) LPELR – 41738 at 31 -32 Paragrahs E-B; Okeke Vs. Lawal & Ors. (2018) LPELR – 43929 at 20 – 21 Paragraphs E – E; Sha’aban Vs. Sambo (2010) 19 NWLR (PT. 1226) 353 at 360 Paragraphs D-G and Awoniyi Vs. Registered Trustees Of Amorc (2000) 10 NWLR (PT. 676) 522.” –

---

SERVICE OF COURT PROCESS ON A COMPANY -STATUTORY PROVISION ON THE PROCEDURE FOR SERVICE OF COURT PROCESS ON CORPORATE ENTITIES

---

“Service of Court processes and documents on corporate entities is regulated by the provisions of Section 78 of the Companies and Allied Matters Act Cap C20, Laws of the Federation 2004 which provides thus:
“78. A Court Process shall be served on a company in the manner provided by the rules of Court and any document may be served on a company by leaving it at or by sending it by post to its registered office or head office of the company.”
Service of Court process on the Appellant, a corporate entity can therefore only be effected by service of same on any of its directors, secretary, trustee or any of its principal officers and not by substituted means”.

---

LAW – PRINCIPLE GOVERNING THE PROCEDURE FOR DOING A THING AS STIPULATED BY LAW MUST BE ADHERED TO

---

“It is a settled principle of law that where the law prescribes the method of doing a thing, that method and no other method must be followed. See Yaki Vs. Bagudu (2015) 18 NWLR (PT. 1491) 288 AT 348 Paragraphs E – F; Saude Vs. Abdullahi (1989) 4 NWLR (PT. 116) 387 AT 422; Adhekegba Vs. Minister Of Defence (2013) 17 NWLR (PT. 1382) 126 AT 147, Paragraphs D -F.” –

---

SERVICE OF ORIGINATING PROCESS – CONSEQUENCES OF A FAILURE TO FULFIL THE CONDITION PRECEDENT ON THE PROPER SERVICE OF AN ORIGINATING PROCESS

---

“Proper service of an originating process is a condition precedent for the exercise of a Court’s jurisdiction in a matter. In Durbar Hotel Plc Vs. Ityough & Ors. (2016) LPELR – 42560 AT 7 PARAGRAPHS A – F, the Supreme Court per Rhode-Vivour JSC held thus:
“Indeed in Madukolu & Ors. Vs. Nkemdilim (1962) 2 NSCC (PT. 374), this Court Per Bairamian JSC made some observation on jurisdiction and the competence of a Court when His Lordship said that a Court is competent when:
1. It is properly constituted as regards numbers and qualifications of the members of the bench, and no members is disqualified for one reason or another; and
2. The subject matter of the case is within the jurisdiction, and there is no feature in the case which prevents the Court from exercising its jurisdiction; and 3. The case comes before the Court initiated by due process of law, and upon fulfilment of any condition precedent to the exercise of jurisdiction.
See also SLB Consortium Ltd Vs. NNPC (2011) 4 SC (PT. 1) PG. 86; NNPC Vs. Clifco Nig. Ltd (2011) 4 SC (PT. 1) PG. 46; Dangana & Anr. Vs. Usman & 4 Ors. (2012) 2 SC (PT. 111) PG. 103.”
It follows that where a case is commenced before a Court without fulfilling the condition precedent, such a Court will lack the requisite competence to hear and determine the matter placed before it.” –

---

CASES CITED

---

None

---

STATUTES REFERRED TO

---

Company and Allied Matters Act, 2004|

---

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT