- SCOA Nig. Plc vs. Danbata
- ₦ 200
SCOA Nig. Plc vs. Danbata
SCOA NIGERIA PLC
DR. M.F. BOULOUS
ALHAJI SANI YARO
LEADERS & CO. LTD.
COURT OF APPEAL
( ABUJA DIVISION )
GEORGE A. OGUNTADE,
JCA ( Presided and Read the Lead Judgment
ZAINAB ADAMU BULKACHUWA, JCA
TUESDAY, 25TH MARCH, 2003
APPEAL - Court of Appeal - Duty of as an
COURT - Court of Appeal - Duty of as an
AND PROCEDURE - Motion paper - Issues raised therein - Whether automatically means that same was
AND PROCEDURE - Writ of summons - Issuance and service of outside jurisdiction
- Service - Prayer for leave to serve a writ outside jurisdiction - Whether
automatically covers leave for issuance of the writ under Order 5 of High Court
of the FCT (Civil Procedure) Rules
AND PROCEDURE - Writ of summons - Issuance of writ meant for service outside
jurisdicton of Federal Capital Territory Abuja High Court - Proper procedure -
High Court of Federal
Capital Territory Abuja (Civil Procedure)
Rules, Order 5, rules 6 and 14
AND PROCEDURE - Technicalities - Impropriety of adherence to at the expense of
Whether the learned trial Judge was right in view of
Order 5, rules 1, 6, 14 and 15 of the High Court of Federal Capital Territory,
Abuja in holding that leave of court for service of a writ outside jurisdiction
once granted constitutes an automatic grant of leave for issuance of the writ
even when leave for issuance of the writ was not applied for or granted.
Whether the learned trial Judge was right in not
considering and making any pronouncement on the issue of non-compliance with
section 99 of the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act, Cap. 407 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 1990.
In suit No.
FCT/HC/CV/737/2000, the 1st respondent was the plaintiff in an action brought
against the appellants and the 2nd respondent at the High Court of Abuja. The
suit was in defamation. The writ of summons and the statement of claim in that
suit were filed together on 19/10/2000 after leave was granted to serve outside
jurisdiction. The appellants, as 1st and 2nd defendants at the lower court, on
2/7/2001 brought an application praying for an order that the writ which was
served outside jurisdiction be set aside on the following grounds:
â€œ1. The plaintiff failed to
comply with the mandatory conditions of the applicable rules of court.
The plaintiff did not obtain the leave of court before
the issuance of the writ of summons which was served out of jurisdiction and of
which notice as in form 5 ought to have been given to the defendants.
The plaintiff did not give notice of the writ of
summons to the 1 st, 2nd and 3rd defendants who were served out of jurisdiction
in Lagos State.
The plaintiff failed to comply with the mandatory
provision as contained in section 99 of the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act,
Cap. 407 of the Federation of Nigeria, 1990.â€
The 1st and 2nd
defendants filed an affidavit in support of the application to which the
plaintiff responded by filing a counter-affidavit. After hearing arguments on
the application on 26/7/2001, the lower court ruled against the application and
dismissed same. The applicants being dissatisfied with the ruling of the lower
court, appealed to the Court of Appeal on three grounds of appeal.