TREASURE LINE INTERLINK LTD v. TAOREED

CITATION: (2019) LPELR-46940(CA)

In the Court of AppealIn the Ibadan Judicial Division

Holden at Ibadan

ON FRIDAY, 15TH MARCH, 2019Suit No: CA/IB/315/2011

Before Their Lordships:

JIMI OLUKAYODE BADA Justice, Court of AppealHARUNA SIMON TSAMMANI Justice, Court of AppealFOLASADE AYODEJI OJO Justice, Court of Appeal

BetweenTREASURE LINE INTERLINK LIMITED - Appellant(s)

AndAKINOLA OLABODE TAOREED - Respondent(s)

RATIO DECIDENDI

(201

9) LP

ELR-46

940(

CA)

1. PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - SERVICE OF COURT PROCESS(ES): Whether service oforiginating process(es) is a pre-condition to the exercise of jurisdiction by the Court; effect of animproper service"The question that comes to mind at this juncture is whether the lower Court had thejurisdictional competence to entertain the Respondent's suit and enter Judgment when theservice of Originating Process is defective.It is settled law that service of Originating Process on a party to a proceeding is a fundamentaland imperative step in the process of adjudication by a Court of law. It is what ignites or givesvent to the jurisdiction of the Court to entertain the matter and make order that will be validand subsisting. Therefore it is not an issue of exercise of discretion by the Court because whereOriginating Process is not served in accordance with the law, it deprives the Court of therequisite 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 heldamong others that:-"Service of the process especially Originating Process is an essential condition for the Court tohave competence or jurisdiction to entertain the matter. Further failure to comply with thiscondition would render the whole proceeding including Judgment entered and all subsequentproceedings based thereon wholly irregular, null and void."See also - SKENCONSULT (NIGERIA) LTD & ANOTHER VS. UKEY (1981) LPELR - 3072 SC.In this appeal under consideration the Appellant was served by substituted service i.e. bypasting the said processes at the last known place of abode of the business of the Appellantwho was the Defendant at suit G7 Akande Shopping Complex behind Lagos Garage, Sango,Ibadan, Oyo State. It must not be forgotten that the Appellant is a Limited Liability Company.The Company and Allied Matters Act by Section 78 made provision on how to serve documentsgenerally on any company Registered under it. By this a Court Process is served on a companyin the manner provided by the Rules of Court. A service on a company must be at theregistered office of the company, and it is therefore bad and ineffective if it is done at a branchoffice 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 OriginatingProcesses to any:-DirectorTrusteeSecretary orOther Principal Officer at the registered office of the company or by leaving the document witha human being who must acknowledge receipt of it by endorsing on the document that it wasleft with him, which was not the case in this appeal under consideration.I am of the view that the service of Originating Processes on the Appellant was not inaccordance with the law.The mode of service ordered by the lower Court constitutes a grave infraction of the lawregulating service of Court Processes on companies.Therefore since the service of the Originating Processes effected on the Appellant was incurablydefective, the Judgment of the lower Court, founded on fundamentally flawed service cannotstand.Consequent upon the foregoing I hold that no proper service was effected on the Appellant. Thislone issue is therefore resolved in favour of the Appellant and against the Respondent."PerBADA, J.C.A. (Pp. 9-11, Paras. B-F) - read in context

(201

9) LP

ELR-46

940(

CA)

2. PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - SERVICE OF COURT PROCESS(ES): Whether service ofCourt process is a pre-condition for exercise of jurisdiction by the Court; effect of improperservice of Court process"It is trite that service of Court process (Originating Process Inclusive) is a crucial part of theadjudication process. It is the law that failure to effect service of a Court process where requiredconstitutes a fundamental defect.It goes to the root and lack of same deprives the Court the legal capacity and competence tohear and determine the matter.See EMEKA VS. OKOROAFOR & ORS. (2017) LPELR - 41738 AT 31 -32 PARAGRAHS E-B; OKEKEVS. 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. REGISTEREDTRUSTEES OF AMORC (2000) 10 NWLR (PT. 676) 522.In the instant appeal, the Appellant's grouse is that the judgment which gave rise to thegarnishee proceedings was given without jurisdiction because the Originating Processes werenot served in accordance with the law. It is the contention of the Respondent that the Appellant,a Limited Liability Company was served via substituted means in violation of the law. Service ofCourt processes and documents on corporate entities is regulated by the provisions of Section78 of the Companies and Allied Matters Act Cap C20, Laws of the Federation 2004 whichprovides thus:"78. A Court Process shall be served on a company in the manner provided by the rules of Courtand any document may be served on a company by leaving it at or by sending it by post to itsregistered office or head office of the company."Service of Court process on the Appellant, a corporate entity can therefore only be effected byservice of same on any of its directors, secretary, trustee or any of its principal officers and notby substituted means.In the case of MARK VS. EKE (2004) LPELR - 1841 AT 30 PARAGRAPHS A-B Musdapher, JSC heldthus:"The need for substituted service arises because personal service cannot be effected on naturalor juristic persons, the procedure for substituted service cannot be made to a corporation likethe Appellant herein."?It is a settled principle of law that where the law prescribes the method of doing a thing, thatmethod 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 AT422; ADHEKEGBA VS. MINISTER OF DEFENCE (2013) 17 NWLR (PT. 1382) 126 AT147,PARAGRAPHS D -F.Proper service of an originating process is a condition precedent for the exercise of a Court'sjurisdiction in a matter. In DURBAR HOTEL PLC VS. ITYOUGH & ORS. (2016) LPELR - 42560 AT 7PARAGRAPHS 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 BairamianJSC made some observation on jurisdiction and the competence of a Court when His Lordshipsaid 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;and2. The subject matter of the case is within the jurisdiction, and there is no feature in the casewhich prevents the Court from exercising its jurisdiction; and3. The case comes before the Court initiated by due process of law, and upon fulfilment of anycondition 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 conditionprecedent, such a Court will lack the requisite competence to hear and determine the matterplaced before it. Failure to effect service of the Originating Processes on the instant Appellant inaccordance with the law robs the lower Court the requisite jurisdiction to entertain the suit and Iso hold. The service on the Appellant vide substituted service is not good service. Thesubsequent judgment and order made by the lower Court in the suit is liable to be set aside."Per OJO, J.C.A. (Pp. 13-16, Paras. B-E) - read in context

(201

9) LP

ELR-46

940(

CA)

(201

9) LP

ELR-46

940(

CA)

JIMI OLUKAYODE BADA, J.C.A. (Delivering the

Leading Judgment): This appeal emanated from the

Ruling of High Court of Justice Oyo State in the Ibadan

Judicial Division in suit No:- I/508/2009 Between:- MR.

AKINOLA OLABODE TAOREED VS. TREASURE LINE

INTERLINK LTD delivered on the 15th day of June, 2011.

B r i e f l y , t h e f a c t s o f t h e c a s e a r e t h a t t h e

Plaintiff/Claimant/Judgment Creditor now Respondent

before this Court instituted his action against the Appellant

through the summary Judgment procedure. The claim was

for (N48,350,000.00) Forty-Eight Million, Three Hundred

and Fifty Thousand Naira. 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. This was done with the leave of Court granted on

the 19th of February 2010.

The lower Court entered Judgment in favour of the

Respondent on the 15th of March 2010 after Appellant had

failed to defend the suit within the time allowed by the

Rules of the Court.

The Respondent initiated Garnishee Proceedings against

1

(201

9) LP

ELR-46

940(

CA)

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 application to set aside the

Judgment of the lower Court.

The lower Court heard the application and delivered its

Ruling dismissing the application 15/6/2011.

The Appellant who is dissatisfied with the said Ruling of the

lower Court appealed to this Court.

The learned Counsel for the Appellant formulated seven

issues for the determination of this appeal.

The said issues are reproduced as follows:-

“(A) Is a trial Court at liberty to pick and choose what

legal issues raised by a litigant before it to address.

(B) Whether the service of the Originating Process of

Court on the Appellant (a Limited Liability Company)

by substituted means to wit, by pasting at the last

premises of the last known address of the Appellant,

was valid at law.

(C) Must a Judgment Debtor who has no notice of the

action be shut out simply because there is a proof of

service on him in the Court’s file.

2

(201

9) LP

ELR-46

940(

CA)

(D) Whether a party to a contract that suffers

frustration before performance is still entitled to his

rights and obligations under the contract,

(E) Whether the Garnishee Proceedings are absolute

under any circumstances once commenced.

(F) Whether a trial Court is at liberty to interpolate

legal issues not raised by the parties before it.

(G) Is it competent for a trial Court to pronounce on

pleadings that are not before it.”

The learned Counsel for the Respondent on the other hand

formulated a single issue for the determination of the

appeal. The said issue is reproduced as follows: -

“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.”

At the hearing of this appeal on 6/2/2019 the learned

Counsel for the Appellant stated that the appeal is against

the Ruling of the High Court of Justice, Oyo State, Ibadan

Division delivered on the 15th of June 2011. The Notice of

Appeal was filed 16/6/2011 and the Record of Appeal was

t r a n s m i t t e d o n 3 0 / 1 1 / 2 0 1 1 a n d d e e m e d a s

properly transmitted on 11/1/2018.

3

(201

9) LP

ELR-46

940(

CA)

The Appellant’s Brief of Argument was filed on 3/5/2013

and deemed as properly filed on 11/1/18.

The learned Counsel for the Appellant also filed the

Appellant’s Reply Brief of Argument on 30/10/18 in

response to the Respondent’s Brief.

He relied on both the Appellant’s Brief of Argument as well

as the Appellant’s Reply Brief of Argument as his argument

in urging that this appeal be allowed.

The learned Counsel for the Respondent in his own case

also referred to the Respondent’s Brief of Argument filed

on 23/5/2018 which was deemed as properly filed on

16/10/2018.

He adopted and relied on the said Respondent’s Brief of

Argument as his argument in this appeal and he urged that

the appeal be dismissed.

I have carefully gone through the issues formulated for the

determination of the appeal by Counsel for both parties.

The sole issue formulated on behalf of the Respondent

captured the fulcrum upon which the appeal rested. I will

therefore rely on the said Respondent’s issue for the

determination of the appeal.

4

(201

9) LP

ELR-46

940(

CA)

ISSUE FOR THE DETERMINATION OF THE APPEAL.

“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.” (Distilled from grounds 1

and 2).

The learned Counsel for the Appellant stated that the

service of the Originating Process of the Court was ordered

to be carried out on the Appellant (a Limited Liability

Company) by substituted means to wit by pasting at the last

known place of abode of the business of the Defendant at

suit G7, Akande Shopping Complex behind Lagos Garage

Sango, Ibadan, Oyo State.

He contended that by the Provisions of Section 78 of the

Companies and Allied Matters Act (CAMA) Court processes

can only be served on a Limited Liability Company by

delivering same to the Director, Secretary or other

Principal Officer or by leaving it at the office. He stated

that the clear import of this Provision is that you can only

leave the said process at an operative office where there

are company Staff and other Officials and not at an office

that is closed down for whatever reasons. He relied on the

case of: -

MARK VS EKE (2004) 5 NWLR PART 865 PAGE 54

5

(201

9) LP

ELR-46

940(

CA)

He submitted that the combined effect of Section 78 of the

Companies and Allied Matters Act and the Supreme Court

authority of MARK VS EKE (Supra) is that the service of

the processes of Court in this Appeal on the Appellant, a

limited liability company by substituted means is wrong.

The learned Counsel for the Respondent in his own

response submitted that the Judgment entered against the

Appellant on 15/3/2010 by the lower Court is a final

Judgment or Judgment obtained on merit, but not a default

Judgment.

He relied on the following cases:-

JOE-DEB VENTURES LTD VS NDIC (2015) ALL FWLR

PART 780 PAGE 1323 AT PAGE 1338 PARAGRAPHS

B-D,

UMO VS UDONWA (2014) ALL FWLR PAGR 721 PAGE

1604 AT 1617 PARAGRAPH B.

The learned Counsel for the Respondent contended that the

Appellant was served with the Originating Process of the

lower Court by substituted means. He stated that the

processes were pasted on the last known office address of

the Appellant at Suit G7, Akande Shopping Complex behind

Lagos Garage, Sango, Ibadan Oyo State on the 19th day of

February 2010.

He argued further that the Appellant absconded from its

lastknown office address to an undisclosed location

(without any forwarding address) after collecting huge

sums of money from many investors. He relied on the

(201

9) LP

ELR-46

940(

CA)

following cases:-OBITUDE VS ONYESOM COMMUNITY

BANK LTD

6

(201

9) LP

ELR-46

940(

CA)

(2014) ALL FWLR PART 739 PAGE 1097 AT PAGE

1119 PARAGRAPHS A-F.

CALHORIE LTD VS INTER CONTINENTAL BANK PLC

(2014) ALL FWLR PART 723 PAGE 195.

It was submitted further that when the Appellant argued

that the amount the Respondent claimed was in excess but

failed to state the actual amount it owed the Respondent.

He went further in his submission that the Appellant does

not have a good defence.

He relied on the following cases:- EPE LOCAL GOVT. VS

KESHINRO (2009) ALL FWLR PART 473 PAGE 1257.

OBULOR VS OBORO (2001) FWLR PART 47 PAGE

1004.

U G W U A G B A G . B . L T D V S N W E D I G B O

INTERNATIONAL VENTURES LTD (2014) ALL FWLR

PART 746 PAGE 548.

NISHIZAWA LTD VS JETHWANI (1984) 12 SC PAGE

234.

TAHIR V. UDEAGBALA HOLDINGS LTD(2005) ALL

FWLR PART 240 PAGE 120

VASWANI VS CANDIDE–JOHNSON (2000) 11 NWLR

PART 679 PAGE 582.

NITEL PLC VS I.C.I (DIRECTORY PUBLISHERS) LTD

(2009) 16 NWLR PART 1167 PAGE 356.

7

(201

9) LP

ELR-46

940(

CA)

It was also submitted on behalf of the Respondent that the

Appellant is a total stranger to the garnishee proceedings

therefore he lacks the locus standi to pray the lower Court

to stay execution of the garnishee order absolute. He also

relied on the following cases:-

UNITED BANK OF AFRICA PLC VS EKANEM (2010) 6

NWLR PART 1190 PAGE 207.

PURIFICATION TECHNIQUES NIG LTD VS AT. GEN.

LAGOS STATE (2004) 9 NWLR PART 879 PAGE 665.

The learned Counsel for the Respondent finally urged this

Court to hold that the lower Court was right in dismissing

the Appellant’s application for setting aside Judgment

delivered on the 15th March 2010.

In the Appellant’s reply brief of argument he merely

reiterated his earlier submission.

It is not in dispute that the Originating Process in this case

at the lower Court was served on the Appellant (a Limited

Liability Company) by substituted means i.e. by pasting at

the last known place of abode of the business of the

Appellant.

It was contended on behalf of the Appellant that the said

service is bad in law. But the learned Counsel for the

Respondent stated that the Appellant was served with the

8

(201

9) LP

ELR-46

940(

CA)

Originating Processes at the lower Court via substituted

means. The said Court Processes were pasted on the last

known office address of the Appellant at suit G7, Akande

Shopping Complex behind Lagos Garage, Sango, Ibadan

Oyo State on 19/2/2010.

The question that comes to mind at this juncture is whether

the lower Court had the jurisdictional competence to

entertain the Respondent’s suit and enter Judgment when

the service of Originating Process is defective.

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

9

(201

9) LP

ELR-46

940(

CA)

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.

In this appeal under consideration the Appellant was

served by substituted service i.e. by pasting the said

processes at the last known place of abode of the business

of the Appellant who was the Defendant at suit G7 Akande

Shopping Complex behind Lagos Garage, Sango, Ibadan,

Oyo State. It must not be forgotten that the Appellant is a

Limited Liability 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.

10

(201

9) LP

ELR-46

940(

CA)

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.

I am of the view that the service of Originating Processes

on the Appellant was not in accordance with the law.

The mode of service ordered by the lower Court constitutes

a grave infraction of the law regulating service of Court

Processes on companies.

Therefore since the service of the Originating Processes

effected on the Appellant was incurably defective, the

Judgment of the lower Court, founded on fundamentally

flawed service cannot stand.

Consequent upon the foregoing I hold that no proper

service was effected on the Appellant. This lone issue is

therefore resolved in favour of the Appellant and against

the Respondent.

In the result with the resolution of this lone issue for

11

(201

9) LP

ELR-46

940(

CA)

determination in this appeal in favour of the Appellant and

against the Respondent, it is my view that there is merit in

this appeal and it is allowed.

In the circumstance, the Judgment of the lower Court in

suit No. – I/508/2009 – MR. AKINOLA OLABODE

TAOREED VS. TREASURE LINE INTERLINK LTD

delivered on 15/3/2010 and the Ruling delivered on

15/6/2011 are hereby set aside. In its place this suit is

hereby sent to the Chief Judge of Oyo State who shall

assign the suit to another Judge who will hear the suit on

its merit.

There shall be no order as to costs. Each of the parties are

to bear their own costs.

Appeal allowed.

HARUNA SIMON TSAMMANI, J.C.A.: I read in advance

the judgment delivered by my learned brother, Jimi

Olukayode Bada, JCA.

My learned brother has comprehensively considered and

resolved the lone issue that came up for determination in

this appeal. I agree with the reasoning and conclusion

arrived at by my learned brother.

I therefore agree that there is merit in this appeal. It is

accordingly allowed. I abide by the consequential orders

made therein including the order on costs.

(201

9) LP

ELR-46

940(

CA)

12

(201

9) LP

ELR-46

940(

CA)

FOLASADE AYODEJI OJO, J.C.A.: I have had the privilege

to read before now the judgment just delivered by my

learned brother, Jimi Olukayode Bada, JCA and I agree with

the reasoning and conclusion therein.

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.

SeeEMEKA 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.

In the instant appeal, the Appellant's grouse is that the

judgment which gave rise to the garnishee proceedings was

given without jurisdiction because the Originating

Processes were not served in accordance with the law. It is

the

13

(201

9) LP

ELR-46

940(

CA)

contention of the Respondent that the Appellant, a Limited

Liability Company was served via substituted means in

violation of the law. 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.

In the case ofMARK VS. EKE (2004) LPELR - 1841 AT

30 PARAGRAPHS A-B Musdapher, JSC held thus:

"The need for substituted service arises because

personal service cannot be effected on natural or

juristic persons, the procedure for substituted service

cannot be made to a corporation like the Appellant

herein."

It is a settled principle of law that where the law prescribes

14

(201

9) LP

ELR-46

940(

CA)

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

( 2 0 1 3 ) 1 7 N W L R ( P T . 1 3 8 2 ) 1 2 6 A T

147,PARAGRAPHS D -F.

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

15

(201

9) LP

ELR-46

940(

CA)

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. Failure to effect service of the

Originating Processes on the instant Appellant in

accordance with the law robs the lower Court the requisite

jurisdiction to entertain the suit and I so hold. The service

on the Appellant vide substituted service is not good

service. The subsequent judgment and order made by the

lower Court in the suit is liable to be set aside.

It is in the light of the foregoing and the fuller reasons

given in the lead judgment delivered by my learned brother

Jimi Olukayode Bada, JCA that I also find merit in this

appeal and allow it. I abide by the consequential orders

made in the lead judgment.

16

(201

9) LP

ELR-46

940(

CA)

Appearances:

MR. D. O. TAKON For Appellant(s)

MR. H. U. LANASE, with him, F. O. AKENROYE,ESQ. For Respondent(s)

(201

9) LP

ELR-46

940(

CA)