Odu’a Investment Company Limited Vs Joseph Taiwo Talabi (1997)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

OGUNDARE, JSC

Does compliance with section 97 and/or section 99 of the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act (now Cap 407 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 1990 and hereinafter is referred to as the Act) coupled with breach of the rule of Court requiring leave of the court or a Judge for a writ to be served outside jurisdiction render the writ and/or service of it a nullity or mere irregularity? this is the question that calls for determination in this appeal.

Plaintiff had, in the High Court of Lagos State, sued the two defendants claiming –

‘1.        An order declaring that the plaintiff is and at all material times was an employee of the 2nd defendant which said 2nd defendant seconded the plaintiff to the 1st defendant as Executive Director-Finance and Secretarial Duties.

2. An order declaring as null and void the 1st defendants letter referenced MD/NED 1/02317 and dated 18th October, 1984 by which the 1st defendant purported to terminate the appointment of the p1aintiff as the Executive Director-Finance and Secretarial Duties of the 1st defendant and that the said termination was malicious and in bad faith.

3. An order compelling the 1st defendant to reinstate the plaintiff in his post of Executive Director – Finance and Secretarial Duties from which he was purported to have been removed with effect from 19th October, 1984.

4. An order compelling the defendant jointly and severally to pay to the plaintiff in full his monthly salary from the 19th day of October, 1984 up to the date of judgment.

In the alternative the plaintiff claims against the defendants jointly and severally the sum of N500,000.00 being general and special damages for wrongful termination of appointment.’

1st defendants address was put in the writ as ‘Ikorodu Road, Ojota, Lagos.’ 2nd defendants address was put as ‘Cocoa House Complex, Ibadan.

By that address, 2nd defendant was to be served, and was indeed served, in Ibadan in Oyo State, a place outside the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court of Lagos State. There was no endorsement on the writ as required by section 97 of the Act which provides:

’97.     Every writ of summons for service under this Part out of the State or the Capital Territory in which it was issued shall, in addition to any other endorsement or notice required by the law of such State or Capital Territory, have endorsed thereon a notice to the following effect (that is to say)-

This summons (or as the case may be) is to be served out of the…….. State (or as the case may be)….       and in the….. State (or as the case may be).’

The writ required that appearance was to be made within ‘eight days after the service of this writ on you’. Section 99 provides for a longer period. It reads:

’99. The period specified in a writ of summons for service under this Part as the period within which a defendant is required to answer before the court to the writ of summons shall be not less than thirty days after service of the writ has been effected, or if a longer period is prescribed by the rules of the court within which the writ of summons is issued, not less than that longer period.’