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
SHARE ON
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
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.”
The correct position of the law has repeatedly been stated by this court that it is straining the rule on proof of service to say that a defendant who filed a defence to the statement of claim was not served the writ of summons because there was no bailiff’s endorsement on the writ. See: Okesuyi v. Lawal (1991) 1 NWLR (Pt.176) 661, per Olatawura, JSC (of blessed memory).
— T. Muhammad, JSC. VAB Petroleum v. Momah (2013) – SC.99/2004
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.
[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)
In SGBN LTD VS ADEWUNMI (2003) LPELR 3081 (SC); (2003) 10 NWLR (PT 829) 526, this Court restated its concern thus: At page 539. “Service of process on a party to a proceeding is fundamental. It is service that confers competence and jurisdiction on the Court seized of the matter. Clearly, due service of process of Court is a condition sine qua non to the hearing of any suit. Therefore, if there is a failure to serve process where service of process is required, the person affected by the order but not served with the process is entitled ex-debito justitiae to have the order set aside as a nullity.”
Click the icons to like, follow, and join JPoetry