IN THE HIGH COURT OF IMO STATE OF NIGERIA
IN THE MBAISE JUDICIAL DIVISION
HOLDEN AT AHIAZU MBAISE
MONDAY 29TH OCTOBER, 2019
BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP: – HON. JUSTICE I.M.NJAKA.
SUIT NO: HAM/93/2018
BETWEEN
- BONIFACE O. ANYANWU
- LAZARUS AMAJUOYI ANYANWU
- CAJETHAN ANYANWU PLAINTIFFS/RESPONDENTS
- CHRISTIAN ANYANWU
- ROMANUS ANYANWU
(Suing for themselves and on behalf o
Anyanwu’s family of Umuihuocha,
Umuamaranno, Umuihuocha in Obihia,
Ahiazu Mbaise, Imo State)
AND
- HRH EZE FERDINARD ALILONU
- MR. NICHODEMUS IBE
- MR. EMMANUEL NNEJI
- MR. MICHAEL AGUNANNE RESPONDENTS
- MR. UDOCHUKWU AGUNANNE
- MR. SYLVANUS ANUJURUM
- MR. KEVI ONUOHA
- MR. THEODORE OKORO
- AHIAZU MBAISE LOCAL DEFENDANT/APPLICANT
GOVERNMENT COUNCIL
- MINISTRY OF LANDS, IMO STATE
- ATTORNEY GENERAL, IMO STATE RESPONDENTS
- ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE
FEDERATION
- INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE
RULING
The 9th defendant by MOTION ON NOTICE dated 14th October 2019, filed same day and said to be BROUGHT PURSUANT TO S.36 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA 1999 (AS AMENDED) prays the court an order striking out this suit for want of jurisdiction on the ground of none service of processes on the 9th Defendant.
The application is supported with an affidavit of 8 paragraphs sworn to by on Anukam Doris O., the Litigation Officer to Ahiazu Mbaise Local Government.
By virtue of her office he is conversant with the facts of law suits against the Local Government. On Monday, the 7th day of October, 2019, Bede I. Ojimadu Esq., Counsel to Ahiazu Mbaise Local Government Area, drew her attention to the pendency of this suit against the Local Government and asked her to check their records and furnish him with necessary details. After searching through her records, there is no process in this suit served on the Ahiazu Mbaise Local Government Area.
She also asked Chief I.C. Ekwueme, the Director of Administration and General Services/ Secretary to Ahiazu Mbaise Local Government Area who informed her and she verily believed him that no process in relation to this suit has been served on him or on his office. The Ahiazu Mbaise Local Government Area has not been served with any process in relation to this ,suit.
It is accompanied be a written address of the counsel, wherein he raised for determination: Whether this court is clothed with the requisite jurisdiction to hear this case and if the answer is in the negative, what is the consequence?
The counsel referred to Mrs. Adejumo Vs Moho Pedro Limited & Anor (2016) All FWLR, 853, (Pages 1643-1644, para C-A) Ratio 4; Mr. Osarobo Idahosa & Anor. Vs Deg-Asio Nigeria Company
Limited & Anor. (2016) All FWLR 830, (pages 1339, para B & 1341. Para F-G) Ratio 1 and 3 on the fundamentality of service of process and its effect on the jurisdiction of the court.
The counsel referred to MT Delman & Anor Vs MT “ANE (Exmt Lesse”) (2016) All FWLR, 836 (Page 576), paras B-C) Ratio 7;to the effect that a party who files a process and pays the necessary service fees is not at liberty to go to bed after filling, but is duty bound to follow up on service and the matter generally. (Ajayi v. Omoregbe (1993) 6 NWLR (Pt. 301) 512 referred to [P. 576 paras B-C).
According to counsel, in the circumstance, it is (sic his) submission that non service of each of the, court processes in this matter on the 9th Defendant/Applicant has robed this court of jurisdiction. The effect of lack of jurisdiction in the circumstance is to strike out the matter.
The Plaintiffs on 17th October 2019 filed counter affidavit of 10 paragraphs sworn to by one Mr. Boniface Anyanwu, the first plaintiff/Respondent in this suit and he has the consent of the other plaintiffs to depose to this counter affidavit.
He has read the affidavit in support of motion filed by the 9th Defendant/Applicant and sworn to by one Anukam Doris .0 dated 14/10/2019. The said affidavit in support is full of fairy tales and blatant falsehood. At all material times even before the institution of this suit, the 9th defendant was served with pre-action notices on the 20/03/2017 and 26/06/2018. The said notices are hereby attached and marked exhibit “XXI” and “XX2” At all material times after this suit was filed, the bailiff of this court, Mr Ubani, told him and he verily believed him, that he duly served the 9th Defendant with the processes of this suit, commencing with the originating processes which was served on 07/01/2019 as well as subsequent hearing notices.
The proof of service sworn by the Bailiff is in the Court file which the court has shown to the 9th Defendant’s Counsel, Bede Ejimadu Esq in the open court. Chris Nwadigo of Counsel also told him at all material times on 18/03/2019 at his office located at No. 23 Wetheral Road Owerri, that he also served Hearing Notice on the Litigation Officer of the 9th Defendant whose name is Amadi Stella and service was on 11/03/2019. The said hearing notice is herewith attached and marked Exhibit “YY”.
At all material times also, the 1st – 8th Defendants also served their processes on the 9th Defendant. It would be in the interest of justice to dismiss this suit.
The counter affidavit is accompanied with a written address of counsel wherein the issue for determination is raised as:
Whether the 9th Defendant was served with the Originating processes and other processes in this Suit?
According to the counsel the answer to the above question is in the affirmative. The originating process was served by the Bailiff of this honourable court. The evidence of service was shown by the presence of the proof of service in the court file.
Order 7 Rule 13(1) of the High court of Imo State Civil Procedure Rules states thus; “After serving any process, the process server shall promptly depose to and file an affidavit setting out the fact, date, time, place and mode of service, describing the process served Such affidavit shall be a prima facie proof of service”
It submitted, moreover, Exhibit YY also shows that the 9th defendant was also served with hearing Notice at all material times, but neglected, refused and failed to defend this action
The counsel referred to Nwankwo -V- Kanu (2010) 6 NWLR 62 Pt.1189 pp 93 para A-C the court of Appeal held that It is the bailiff of Court that is appointed and saddled with the duty to serve processes of court on parties required to be served.
It is submitted that in this case, it is the bailiff of court that effected the service on the 9th defendant and the proof of service is in the court file to show evidence of service.
The court is urged to dismiss this application with substantial cost against the 9th defendant.
On service of the Plaintiffs’ Counter Affidavit, the 9th Defendant file further written address
According to the counsel, on Monday the 14th day of October, 2019 when this metter came up, he indicated to the court that he have a motion wherein he applied to this court to strike out this suit on the ground that the 9th defendant/applicant has not been served with the originating or any other process in this suit.
Consequently, this court went through its record and found an affidavit of service of the writ which alleged that the writ was served on an unnamed litigation officer of the 9th respondent. Hence the need to further address the court on the effect of the purported affidavit of service of the writ on an unnamed litigation officer of the 9th defendant.
It is submitted by the counsel that it is trite law that every originating process must be served personally on the parties. See Or. 7 R I 2 of the rules of this court. Substituted service can only be resorted to where personal service is impossible and it must be with the leave of court. see Or. 7 RI 5 of the rules of this court
The counsel cited Section 165 of the Imo State Local Govt. Administration Law (As Amended) provides; “The notice referred to in section 170 and any summons, notice or other document required or authorized to be served on a Local Government in connection with any suit by or against such Local Government shall be served by delivering the same to or sending it by registered post addressed to, the Secretary to Local Government at the principal office of the Local Government:
Provided that the court may, with regard to any particular suit or document, order service on the Local Government to be effected otherwise and in that event service shall be effected in accordance with terms of that order.”
It is submitted that from the fore going, it is clear that the writ and summons and indeed every process in this suit can only be served on the Secretary to the Local Government except where on application pursuant to the proviso to S.165 supra, the court orders otherwise.
The counsel referred to In Tsokwa Motors (Nig.) Ltd V. U.B.A. Pic. (2008), AFWLR 403, (Pg. 1254, paras. B-C), THE Supreme Court held that; “A court can only be competent among other things if all the conditions precedent to its jurisdiction were fulfilled. The service of the process on the defendant so as to enable him appear to defend the relief being sought against him and due appearance by the party or any counsel must be those fundamental conditions precedent required before the court can have competence and jurisdiction. This well accords with the principle of natural justice.”
The counsel also referred to Oyun Local Govt. V. First Amalgamated Buildings Society Ltd. (2006)AFWLR,334 (Pg.1993, paras. G-H), It was held that: ‘Where statute provides or directs that a particular person or office is to be served with a court’s process, any service effected on any person other than the one provided by the law amounts to non-service. See Amadi v NNPC (2000) FWLR (Pt.9) 1527, (2000) 6 SC (Pt. 1) 66 referred to [p. 1993, paras GH.’ In Okoye V. Center Point Merchant Bank Ltd. (2008) AFWLR, 441(Pg. 829, paras. D-E), THE Supreme Court held that; “The law provides for the way corporate or artificial person is served. If the law provides for a particular way or method, non-compliance in that particular way or method will nullify the service ab ini’o. As a corporate or artificial person does not exist as a human being, the law provides for service on a representative of the body, be he the chairman or the secretary or another person as the case may be. (P. 829, paras D-E) .”
Thus, assuming but without conceding that the writ was served on the litigation officer of the 9th respondent such service is improper and a nullity. More so when the 9th respondent is insisting that no service has been effected. The alleged service amount to substituted service without the order of court and therefore void. See Tuoyo Holdings V. Niger-Benue Transport Co. Ltd (2007) AFWLR 356 (Pg. 811 paras. A-B) where it was held that; “Without proper service on a party to a proceeding, action with respect to that proceeding can neither commence nor continue as the entire proceeding is a nullity”.
In any case it is our submission that the 9th respondent has not been served with any process or originating process.
By the provisions of Order 3 (2) of the rules of this court, Writ of
Summons only cannot originate an action. It must be accompanied by at least statement of claim, list of witness and witness written deposition. Following the affidavit of service discovered in the court file the only thing served on the 9th Respondent is the writ. Where are the other originating processes?
It is submitted that by order 7 a 13, & (1) 17, when the bailiff of this court serves a process he is mandated to exhibit the formal acknowledgment of service. There is no acknowledgement of service of the Writ of Summons exhibited. This shows that no service was effected.
It is submitted that another issue is whether the plaintiff can be heard in argument saying that the bailiff of this court informed them that he served. The evidence of the plaintiffs in their counter affidavit is mere hearsay. See S. 37 of the Evidence Act. By S. 38 of the Evidence Act, Hearsay evidence is not admissible except as provided in that part of the Act. Counsel also referred to S 126(b) of the Evidence Act.
It is submitted that the evidence of the plaintiffs is a dangerous hearsay and cannot be admitted. The bailiff of this court is available is not dead, can be found, is capable of given evidence and at almost no cost. Why can’t he depose to an affidavit to counter our position.
According to the counsel the above submission became more tenable when a critical look at paragraph 5 of the counter Affidavit failed to disclose the time and place and circumstance of the information. See S. 115 (4) of the Evidence Act. Why would the court bailiff give plaintiffs information when himself could have put down the facts in an affidavit.
At this stage my Lord, it is important to point out that paragraph 7 of the Counter Affidavit is contradictory to Exhibit YY referred to therein and is not worthy of any belief. Whereas paragraph 7 of the Counter Affidavit alleges that hearing notice was served on the 9th defendant and sought to prove same with Exhibit YY (as proof of service of the hearing notice), Exhibit YY is clear on what it purportedly served which is motion on notice and it was on the 11th defendant and not on 9th defendant. Turning to the back of Exhibit “YY” one will see the purported acknowledgement by one Amadi Stella who described herself as Litigation Officer to the 9th defendant. However, one need not lose sight of the fact that there are several material alteration on this part making it quite unreliable. Of course we have the Litigation Officer of the 9th defendant Anuka Doris having deposed to affidavit herein. Again,
Exhibit YY was not found in the court file on 14/10/2019 when this matter came up. It is doubtful origin. On top of Exhibit YY appears the received stamp of “Ministry of Justice, Civil Litigation
Department, Owerri. received by Nwachukwu B .• on 06/03/2019”. At this point the court is urged to refer the plaintiff’s counsel to the Legal Practitioners disciplinary committee for attempt to mislead the court.
It is submitted that it is trite that statement of Claim overrides the writ. If you serve the writ without serving the Statement of claim and the amended statement of clam on the 9th defendant to what will it react to.
According to counsel he has restrained himself from talking about pre-action Notice because the issue can only be properly raised in pleading upon receipt of statement of claim before being raised as an issue. Doing otherwise will amount to demurrer. But the court will see that after telling all the lies, the whole issue was resolved in paragraph nine of the plaintiffs Counter Affidavit.
It is counsel’s final contention that unless and until the bailiff of this court finally discloses the identity (name) of the so-called litigation officer who must be the authorized agent of the 9th defendant, service on a person unknown to the 9th Respondent cannot be deemed to be service on the 9th Respondent.
The court is urged to hold that there has not been service of originating process and other subsequent processes on the 9th Respondent and to dismiss this action.
RESOLUTION OF MATTER
The contention here is that the 9th Defendant, the Applicant in this motion was not served with the processes of this court- the pleadings of the Plaintiff. In IKOM LG v. CHENLEX GROUP LTD. (2011) LPELR-4301(CA) it is stated:
“The law is firmly settled that the service of a court process on a party, where it should be served is one of the fundamental conditions precedent to the exercise of jurisdiction by a court. Thus, if service of process is necessary or required and there is no concrete or irrefutable proof that such service has been effected on the adverse party, either personally, through counsel or by substituted means as ordered by a court; any decision or judgment emanating from such a proceeding is a nullity. Authorities abound to the effect that failure to serve a party with requisite processes in a proceeding is a fundamental breach which will render the said proceeding null and void. See U. B. A. Plc. v. Ajileye (1999) 13 NWLR (Pt. 633) 116; Management Entp. Ltd. v. Otusanya (1987) 2 NWLR (Pt, 55) 179; Scott Emuakpor v. Ukavbe (1975) 12 SC 4I; Okereke v. Ejiofor (1996) 5 NWLR (Pt. 434) 90.” Per OREDOLA, J.C.A. (Pp. 10-11, paras. E-B)
Whenever the issue of service of court process is raised the first point of call is the court file. The Rules demands there shall be affidavit of service to be filled in the court file after any service of process. By virtue of Order 7 Rule 13(1) High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2017:
After serving any process, the Process Server shall promptly depose to and file an affidavit setting out the fact, date, time place and mode of service, describing the process served and may exhibit the acknowledgment of service. Such affidavit shall be prima facie proof of service.
In ALL STATES TRUST BANK PLC v. REGISTERED TRUSTEES OF MISSION HOUSE INTERNATIONAL & ORS (2018) LPELR-44349(CA) it is stated:
“The purpose of service of Court processes on the parties to a case is to bring to their notice/attention the pendency of the case, the contents of the case and give them an opportunity to react to the said processes. Thus, the service of Court process is fundamental to the hearing of any suit before the Court. It is a well known practice of our Courts that proof of service of all processes, where necessary, are enclosed in the Court file of the suit concerned so that on the date slated for hearing, the Judge, by referring to the file, can easily and readily determine whether there was any such proof of service or not.” Per SANKEY, J.C.A. (P. 30, Paras. B-E)
Affidavit of service is a prima facie evidence of service. It is a rebuttable evidence for that matter. When on the face of it there is nothing to impugn on the affidavit of service and there is no rebuttal affidavit then the court is bound to act on it. In FORBY ENGR. CO. LTD & ANOR v. AMCON (2018) LPELR-43861(CA) it is stated:
“It is beyond viable argument that an affidavit of service of a Court’s processes by the bailiff or other officer of the Court empowered to do so, is prima facie evidence of the service of the processes and the burden is on the party who disputes such service to rebut the presumption in favour of the affidavit evidence by filing a counter affidavit to controvert the service. Ethiopian Airlines v. Onu (2005) 11 NWLR (936) 214; Okesuji v. Lawal (1991) 1 NWLR (170) 661, Jikantoro v. Dantoro (2004) 5 SC (Pt II) 1, Uko v. Ekpenyong (2006) ALL FWLR (#24)1927, Omega Bank v. OBC Limited (2005) 8 NWLR (928) 547. Maduka v. Ubah (2015) 11 NWLR (1470) 201.”Per GARBA, J.C.A. (Pp. 24-25, Paras. F-C)
Now there is in the court file an affidavit of service deposed to by the bailiff of the court on the 14th day of January 2019. It is to the effect that the Writ of Summons and attached documents was served on the 9th Defendant on the 7th January 2019 by delivering same personally to 9th Defendant through Litigation Officer at Ahiazu Mbaise LGA.
Since there is a presumption of regularity of the affidavit of service of the bailiff, the law is that where defendant denies having been served, the onus is on him/her to prove to the satisfaction of court that the service was ineffective. Where there is an irregularity or defect in the service of a court process it does not void the suit as to warrant its being dismissed or struck out. Unless the writ in addition to it being served irregularly is intrinsically and fundamentally defective. On the way this can be done, the court in DUKE v. AKPABUYO LOCAL GOVT (2005) LPELR – 969 (SC), OGUAGBU, JSC held at page 20, paras B – E that:
“…a defendant may challenge the writ and or service of it either by; (a) entering an appearance on protest or (b) entering a conditional appearance and (c) then file a motion asking the Court seized of the matter to set aside the purported writ and its purported service on him/it on the ground of an essential invalidity of either the writ or its service or both.”
My understanding of the contention is that it has nothing touching on the validity of the writ as to warrant the striking out of the entire suit for lack of jurisdiction.
When this matter came on the 7th October 2019 the following was recorded:
Chris C. Nwadigo for plaintiff
P.L.Osuagwu for 1st – 8th Defendants
B.I.Ojimadu for 9th Defendant.
Nwadigo: It is for hearing today. We are ready. Boniface the PW is in court.
Ojimadu: On 6- 8 – 19 I was retained by 9th Defendant to represent them. Following that I have written the Office of the Attorney General Imo State. Till date we have not received a feedback. In the circumstance we ask for date to enable me access the file and know what position to take.
Osuagwu: In view of the application by the counsel to the 9th Defendant it will be proper to adjourn to enable all papers to be in for proper adjudication.
Nwadigo: We oppose application for adjournment. The 9th Defendant was served in September 2018. Several hearing notices were also on the order of court served on the 9th Defendant. Till date the 9th Defendant has not entered appearance. The 1st – 8th Defendants are playing games with the 9th Defendant and entered into the land. We have served processes on the AG Imo State and they said they have no interest.
If the court is minded to adjourn for them we will ask for a cost of 50,000 against the 9th Defendant.
Osuagwu: I am only to reply to the issue of trespass. I was there to just know the land in question.
Court: Mattter is adjourned to the outstanding date of 14-10-19 at the instance of the 9th Defendant. No order as to cost
On the 14-10-19 the following transpired:
C.C. Nwadigo for Plaintiff
P.L.Osuagwu for 1st – 8th Defendants
B.I.Ojimadu with C C Nnaji for the 9th Defendant
Ojimadu: We have a motion dated 14-10-19 filed same day i.e. today. We discovered that no process in this matter has been served on the 9th Defendant so we have nothing to react to.
Nwadigo: I want to say on a good authority that the processes were served on the 9th Defendant. I will waive my right to file a counter affidavit and I will reply on point of law.
Court: I think since the parties have something to rebut in respect of the motion, it will be proper to adjourn for parties to file processes. It is adjourned to 21-10-19 for hearing of the motion.
Then the motion was heard on 21-10-19.
Now Section 165 of the Imo State Local Govt. Administration Law (As Amended) provides:
“The notice referred to in section 170 and any summons, notice or other document required or authorized to be served on a Local Government in connection with any suit by or against such Local Government shall be served by delivering the same to or sending it by registered post addressed to, the Secretary to Local Government at the principal office of the Local Government:
Provided that the court may, with regard to any particular suit or document, order service on the Local Government to be effected otherwise and in that event service shall be effected in accordance with terms of that order.”
I observed that in the affidavit in support of the 9th Defendant’s application it is deposed:
“I Anukam Doris O, female, adult Christian and Nigerian do hereby make oath and state as follows:
That;
- I am the deponent
- I am the Litigation Officer to Ahiazu Mbaise Local Government.
- By virtue of my office I am conversant with the facts of law suits against the Local Government.”
Underlining for emphasis
This is not a situation where there is no affidavit of service and the defendant is saying he was not served. Where there is affidavit of service and there is a challenge as to the authenticity of the affidavit, it is not enough to file a motion to set aside the processes for non service. The procedure of raising non service DUKE v. AKPABUYO LOCAL GOVT (2005) LPELR – 969 (SC) may not be adequate. There must be a counter affidavit to the affidavit of service. The bailiff who deposed to the affidavit of service must be confronted with a counter to his affidavit of service. In some cases, it may be necessary to cross examine the bailiff.
The affidavit in support of this application did not make any reference to the affidavit of service of bailiff. It did not rebut the facts deposed to in the affidavit of service. In CROSS RIVER STATE WATERBOARD LTD v. ONEN & ORS (2016) LPELR-41235(CA) it is stated:
“The best evidence of service of Court process is an affidavit of service. An affidavit of service in proof of service of Court process deposed to by a bailiff or other officer of the Court is prima facie evidence of service. It is settled that an affidavit of service deposed to by the person effecting service, such as a Court bailiff, setting out the fact, place, mode and date of service and describing the document served shall be prima facie proof of the matters stated in the endorsement or affidavit; Okoye v. Centre Point Merchant Bank Ltd (2008) 7-12 S.C. 1. The affidavit of service is however not conclusive proof of service. It is rebuttable. In circumstances when the authenticity of the affidavit of service is challenged, the party challenging service is expected to depose to an affidavit in opposition to the affidavit of service. Ismaeel Ahmed v. Nasiru Ahmed (2013) LPELR-21143(SC); Attorney General of Anambra State & Ors v. Okeke & Ors. (2002) LPELR-604(SC).” Per OTISI, J.C.A. (Pp. 31-32, Paras. C-A)
On the first appearance of the counsel for the 9th Defendant he stated that he has been retained by the 9th Defendant. He did not tell the court any peculiar circumstance surrounding his briefing. It is difficult to say that he was retained without the court processes. He also said that following his briefing he wrote the Attorney General. The affidavit in support of this application made no reference to the Attorney General response to the letter in respect of this suit or whereabouts of the processes. See VAB PETROLEUM INC. v. MOMAH (2013) LPELR-19770(SC) In IDO/OSI LOCAL GOVT. v ALOKU (2007) ALL FWLR (PT. 352) 1807 AT 1817 PARAS. E – G (CA it is stated:
“I think it goes without saying that the aim, and the whole purpose of an affidavit of service is to persuade the court that the other party entitled to be served was in fact served. That also the rigour of an affidavit of service can be greatly reduced where the person served with the writ suddenly appeared in court. That being the case, there shall be no further need to insist on the proof of service. Since the appellant was present in court, is there any best or better proof than the presence of the person on whom the processes was to be served? See Okesuji v. Lawal (1991)1 NWLR (Pt. 170) 661″ Pe Muntaka-Commassie JCA.
The essence of service is to ensure that a party is put on notice of the pending litigation. The notice that the Local Government had was what made them to contact a lawyer. That notice is the essence of service must have guided the court when it went on to state in Ido/Osi Local Govt. v. Aluko (2007) ALL FWLR (Pt. 352) 1807 at 1817 Paras. C – D (CA)
“Notwithstanding the above, even if the appeal is considered on its merit, it is still bound to fail. The main complaint of the appellant was the alleged non-service of the court processes on the secretary of the Ido/Osi Local government. I have already set out the contents of the affidavit of service, that the processes were served by one Mr. Afolabi of Ido/Osi Local Government.” Per Muntaka-Commassie, JCA.
In this case, other defendants served with the originating process by the same bailiff put up appearance. In FIRST BANK & ANOR v. FCMB (2016) LPELR-42217(CA) it is stated:
“It is true that Affidavit of Service is not a conclusive proof of service but until the contrary is proved by way of deposition to state the opposite; such Affidavit can be acted upon. See: FEDERAL AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF NIG v. WAMAL EXPRESS SERVICES (NIG.) LTD (2011) LPELR-1261 (SC); LAWSON-JACK C. THE S.P.D.C. OF NIG. LTD (2002) 7 SC (Pt. 11) 112. The Appellants have not been able to unequivocally debunk the service of the garnishee order nisi especially when it has been argued and shown by the Respondent that the other Commercial banks who were served with the said order filed Affidavit to show cause (See page 48 of the Record). In the light of the above, I am very satisfied that the Appellants were on the 12th October, 2006 served with the garnishee order nisi dated 25th September, 2006.” Per TUKUR, J.C.A. (Pp. 12-14, Paras. B-F)
See also ECOBANK v. KUNLE & ORS (2018) LPELR-44239(CA)
In the circumstances of this case, I think it is safer and accord with justice devoid of technicalities to hold that the 9th Defendant was served with the Originating processes in this suit.
The application of the 9th Defendant is accordingly dismissed.
I so hold.
I.M.NJAKA
Judge
29-10-19