Panalpina World Transport Holding Ag. V. Jeidoc Limited & Anor (2011)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

RITA NOSAKHARE PEMU, J.C.A.(Delivering the Leading Judgment)

This is an interlocutory appeal emanating from the decision of Hon. Justice P.I. Ajoku of the Federal High Court Annex, Ikoyi, Lagos, delivered on the 25th day of February 2009, wherein the Learned Trial Judge ordered simpliciter that he would take adjournment on priority of the applications before him.

The said decision of the Learned Trial Judge is reflected at pages 490-492 of the Record of Appeal. I deem it pertinent to reproduce verbatim the proceedings of the Court of the 25th day of February 2009 for a better appreciation of the matter leading to the Ruling, the subject matter of this Appeal.

“Parties representatives of Jeido Ltd

Representation: Prof. Yemi Osibajo SAN with V.O.M. Alonge (Mrs), Babatunde Irukera Esq. and Fideh Albert Esq. for Petitioner/Applicant.

Yemi: According to order of court on 15/8/08, the Applicant has served notice of petition as Exhibited in the 13 paragraph of counter affidavit of the application dated 20/2/09 as Exhibit JD1 sworn to by Victor Adedoyin.

The document shows that there is an acknowledgment from the Federal Department of Justice and Police FDJP Federal Office of Justice FOJ.

The 2nd document shows proof of service on Panalpina World Transport Holding AG. Dated 27/11/08.

He submitted that is proof of service in accordance to the order of court on 15/6/09 wherein the court granted leave to serve petition on the 2nd respondent.

Fajalu: They filed a motion dated 17/1/09 with additional ground to support the motion dated 24/2/09 with further affidavit motion to set aside the purported service as they have not been served in compliance with the law.

Court: Will take adjournment on priority of the applications.

Fajalu: The 1st respondent has been served of the petition and thus he had challenged the jurisdiction of this Court by filing preliminary objection dated 24/8/08 and also preliminary objection dated 1/9/08 and the one dated 5/11/08 and a counter affidavit to petition filed 12/8/08. Also motion on notice dated 19/1/09 and additional grounds dated 24/2/09 but the 2nd respondent is still not served with the Originating process today.

In EIMSKIP LTD VS ESQUISITE INDUSTRIAL LTD (2003) 4 NWLR PT. 809 PP.93,97-99. SKIN CONSULT VS UKEYI

Fajalu: He insists that the 2nd respondent has not been served in accordance with the Law and his application to set aside service should be taken 1st by the court refer EIMSKIP LTD VS ESQUISITE LTD SUPRA. He submits that non service jobs this court of requisite jurisdiction.