[W]hen a litigant files a document in the court registry and pays all the fees, it is not his duty to pay the bailiff any money for transport or otherwise so that he could effect service on the other party, if he gives the bailiff any money it is only to speed up the services on the other party.
— Opene JCA. United Bank for Africa (UBA) v. Samuel Igelle Ujor (CA/C/134/99, 20 FEB 2001)
SHARE ON
The law is well settled that personal service of an originating process on a party to a proceeding is fundamental. It is service that confers jurisdiction on the Court seised of the matter. Where there is failure to serve a process where service is required, the person entitled to be served but not so serviced, is entitled, ex debito justicae to have it set aside.
– A. Aboki JSC. Odey v. Alaga (2021) – SC.9/2021
Again and strictly speaking, the issuing of civil process (here Writ of Summons) should be the concern of the High Court Law and the High Court Rules while the Service of such process will be referable to “the Law made for the Service of civil process of the Courts” – the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act Cap 189 of 1958. The reality of the present position is that the High Court of Lagos (Civil Procedure) Rules not only made provision for Service but also incorporated by direct reference, the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act.
– Oputa, JSC. Adegoke v. Adesanya (1989)
Undoubtedly, the essence of service of originating processes upon a party, a defendant or Respondent as the case may be in administration of justice, cannot be over emphasized. Indeed, the service of origination process on a party is not merely important but fundamental. Indeed, it goes very deeply to the root of the Jurisdictional competence of the Court to adjudicate upon the matter. Thus, failure to serve the adverse party with the necessary originating process invariably renders the proceedings by the Court and any orders predicated thereupon, nullities.
– I.M.M. Saulawa JCA. Owhor v. Obodo (2020) – CA/PH/448/2017
In Von Joel v. Hornsey (1895) 2 Ch 774 – C.A. In that case, the evidence showed that the defendant had repeatedly evaded attempts to serve him with process, and in the meantime had gone on with the building. Again without regard to the ultimate rights of the parties, the court directed the defendant to pull down that part of the building thus erected.
Put in another way, service is a precondition to the exercise of jurisdiction by the Courts. Where there is no service or there is a procedural fault in service in subsequent proceedings are a nullity ab initio. This is based on the principle of law that a party should know or be aware that there is a suit against him so that he can put up a defence. If after service, he does not put up a defence the law will assume and rightly too for that matter that he had no defence. Failure to serve process where service is required in a particular manner is a fundamental vice. It deprives the Court of the necessary competence and jurisdiction to hear the suit. That is to say, that the condition precedent to the exercise of jurisdiction was not fulfilled.
– S.C. OSEJI, J.S.C. Odey v. Alaga (2021) – SC.9/2021
Agbaje v. Fashola (2008) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1082) 90 at 142. “Where it is alleged that a document was delivered to a person who denies receiving such document, proof of delivery to such person can be established by: (a) dispatch book indicating receipt; or (b) evidence of dispatch by registered post; or (c) evidence of witness, credible enough that the person was served with the document.”
Click the icons to like, follow, and join JPoetry