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
[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)
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.”
Service of an originating process, such as the writ of summons, originating summons, notice of appeal, etc, is fundamental and goes to the root of the competence of the Court to adjudicate. Where an originating process has not been served on the adverse party, the non-service vitiates the entire proceedings and any orders made therein. The premise for this proposition is that a party to a proceeding should know or be aware that there is a case against him in order to afford him adequate opportunity to defend himself if he desires to do so.
– A. Aboki JSC. Odey v. Alaga (2021) – SC.9/2021
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.
In effect, it, [that is, ineffective service], is a fundamental vice that vitiates the exercise of the jurisdiction and competence of the Court. It is beyond what can be waived for it is a condition precedent to the invocation of the Court’s jurisdiction.
– C.C. Nweze 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)
Click the icons to like, follow, and join JPoetry