LITIGANT HAS NO DUTY TO PAY BAILIFF TO EFFECT SERVICE ON THE OTHER PARTY

[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)

Was this dictum helpful?

PROOF OF DELIVERY OF DOCUMENT

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.”

Was this dictum helpful?

PERSONAL SERVICE OF AN ORIGINATING PROCESS IS FUNDAMENTAL

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

Was this dictum helpful?

INEFFECTIVE SERVICE VITIATES COURT’S JURISDICTION

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

Was this dictum helpful?

SERVICE OF PROCESS SHOULD BE DONE IN THE RIGHT MANNER

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

Was this dictum helpful?

EVADING COURT PROCESSES TO CONTINUE WITH BUILDING RES

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.

SERVICE OF PROCESS IS FUNDAMENTAL AND FAILURE VITIATES

Reach more audience. Place advert here.

Was this dictum helpful?

LITIGANT HAS NO DUTY TO PAY BAILIFF TO EFFECT SERVICE ON THE OTHER PARTY

Was this dictum helpful?

PROOF OF DELIVERY OF DOCUMENT

Was this dictum helpful?

PERSONAL SERVICE OF AN ORIGINATING PROCESS IS FUNDAMENTAL

Was this dictum helpful?

INEFFECTIVE SERVICE VITIATES COURT’S JURISDICTION

Was this dictum helpful?

SERVICE OF PROCESS SHOULD BE DONE IN THE RIGHT MANNER

Was this dictum helpful?

EVADING COURT PROCESSES TO CONTINUE WITH BUILDING RES

Was this dictum helpful?