Korum Limited V. International Trust Bank Plc. (2010)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

UWANI MUSA ABBA AJI, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

This is an appeal against the Ruling of Hon. Justice U.A. Inyang, of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja, delivered on the 5th day of October, 2005, in which the learned trial judge dismissed the Appellant’s Preliminary Objection, challenging the jurisdiction of the trial court from entertaining the suit. The Appellant’s Preliminary Objection was predicated upon the Respondent’s failure to comply with statutory requirements in the issuance and service of originating processes on the Appellant.

The Respondent (Plaintiff at the lower court), via a Writ of Summons filed on the 9th day of March, 2004, instituted an action under the Undefended List, against the Appellant, claiming the following reliefs:

1.The sum of N504, 690.83 (Five Hundred and Four Thousand, six Hundred and Ninety Naira, Eighty- Three kobo) only, being outstanding debt due to the Plaintiff as at May 7th 2003.

2. Interest on the said sum of N504, 690.93 (Five Hundred and Four Thousand, Six Hundred and Ninety Naira, Eighty-Three kobo) at the rate of 30% per annum from 15th November, 2003, until date of judgment.
3. interest on the judgment sum at the rate of 10% per annum until the judgment debt is fully liquidated,
4. The cost of this suit.

The said Writ of Summons was served on one A.Y. Shuaibu, the Director of the Appellant, at No. 452 Nouakchott Street, Wuse Zone I, Abuja. The contention of the Appellant is that the Appellant being an incorporated company with Registered office at No. 5A pategi Road, G.R.A. Kaduna, the issuance and service of the writ on the Appellant Director, in Abuja, was not in compliance with statutory requirements because there was:

1.) No leave to issue and serve same outside jurisdiction.

2.) No endorsement that it was to be served outside jurisdiction

3.) Improper service

In his Ruling, delivered on the 5th day of October, 2005, the learned trial judge said, at page 59 of the Records, while dismissing the Appellant’s Preliminary Objection thus:

” …it is the view of this Court and I so hold that substantial compliance with the provisions of Section 87 of the Companies and Allied Matters Act, CAP 59 and Order 72, Rule I of the Rules of this Court, 1999, applicable to this interlocutory application by the Plaintiff/Respondent in the service of the Court processes on the Defendant/Applicant’s Managing Director, who is the sole or only officer of the Defendant Company…constitutes good and valid service of the said Processes on the Defendant/Applicant. To vitiate such service on ground of minor lapses or omissions by the Respondent is to drive the law to technicality.”

The Appellant is dissatisfied with this ruling and has appealed to this Honourable Court via a Notice of Appeal filed on the 17th day of October, 2005 containing four (4) grounds of appeal. The grounds of appeal without their particulars are hereby reproduced.

GROUNDS OF APPEAL:

GROUND ONE:

The learned trial court erred in law when it held that a Writ of Summons for service on a company whose registered office address is outside the jurisdiction of the court can be issued and served in any manner without leave of court first sought and obtained.