Download PDF
<p class="Style" style="margin-right:41.0pt"><b><u><span style="font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-font-width:90%;mso-ansi-language:EN-US; mso-bidi-language:HE">Representation</span></u></b><b><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-font-width:90%;mso-ansi-language:EN-US; mso-bidi-language:HE">:<o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="Style" style="margin-right:41.0pt"><span style="font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-font-width:90%;mso-ansi-language:EN-US; mso-bidi-language:HE;mso-bidi-font-weight:bold">R. C Ubochi for the Claimant<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Style" style="margin-right:41.0pt"><span style="font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-font-width:90%;mso-ansi-language:EN-US; mso-bidi-language:HE;mso-bidi-font-weight:bold">Chief H.N Duruoha for the Defendant<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Style" style="margin-right:41.0pt;line-height:17.5pt;mso-line-height-rule: exactly"><b><span style="font-size:8.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"; mso-font-width:90%;mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language:HE"> </span></b></p> <p class="Style" align="center" style="margin-right:41.0pt;text-align:center; line-height:17.5pt;mso-line-height-rule:exactly"><b><u><span style="font-size: 13.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-font-width:90%;mso-ansi-language:EN-US; mso-bidi-language:HE">RULING<o:p></o:p></span></u></b></p> <p class="Style" style="margin-right:41.0pt;text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-font-width:90%;mso-ansi-language:EN-US; mso-bidi-language:HE;mso-bidi-font-weight:bold">This ruling is premised on a motion on Notice dated and filed on the 31<sup>st</sup> August 2016 and brought pursuant to Section 24(1) of the National Industrial Court Act 2006, Order 11(1) of the National Industrial Court Rules 2007 and the inherent jurisdiction of the Court, wherein the Defendant sought the following Orders of the Court:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Style" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:41.0pt;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify"><b><i><span style="font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-ansi-language:EN-US; mso-bidi-language:HE">Setting aside the service of the processes of this suit on Defendant on the ground that:<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p> <p class="Style" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:41.0pt;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:63.8pt;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify"><b><i><span style="font-family:"Comic Sans MS"; mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language:HE">i. the processes in this action were not served in accordance with the law.</span></i></b><b><span style="font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-ansi-language:EN-US; mso-bidi-language:HE"><o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="Style" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:41.0pt;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:63.8pt;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify"><b><i><span style="font-family:"Comic Sans MS"; mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language:HE">ii. the Writ of Summons and other documents filed by Claimant are voidable having not been sealed as provided for by law. <o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p> <p class="Style" style="margin-right:41.0pt;text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language: HE">The application is supported by a seven-paragraph affidavit <br> deposed to by one Eugene Ejiofor, the branch Secretary of Defendant/Applicant’s MCC Road, Owerri branch. <b><i><o:p></o:p></i></b></span></p> <p class="Style" style="margin-right:41.0pt;text-align:justify"><b><i><span style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family: "Comic Sans MS";mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language:HE"> </span></i></b></p> <p class="Style" style="margin-right:41.0pt;text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language: HE">In the accompanying address, Counsel proposed two issues to be determined as follows:<b><i><o:p></o:p></i></b></span></p> <p class="Style" style="margin-top:.7pt;margin-right:4.3pt;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:48.35pt;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in; mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1"><!--[if !supportLists]--><i><span style="font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-fareast-font-family:"Comic Sans MS"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language: HE">a.<span style="font-style: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></i><!--[endif]--><b><i><span style="font-family:"Comic Sans MS"; mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language:HE">Whether the mode of service of the Writ of Summons and other <br> processes in this action on applicant is permissible in law.<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p> <p class="Style" style="margin-top:.7pt;margin-right:4.3pt;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:48.35pt;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in; mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family:"Comic Sans MS"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-font-family:"Comic Sans MS"; mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language:HE">b.<span style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><b><i><span style="font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language: HE">Whether the Writ of Summons, Statement of Facts and other processes filed by Respondent in this action are competent without <br> seals.</span></i></b><b><span style="font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language: HE"> <o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="Style" style="margin-right:2.1pt;text-align:justify;tab-stops:0in"><span style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-ansi-language:EN-US; mso-bidi-language:HE"> </span></p> <p class="Style" style="margin-right:2.1pt;text-align:justify;tab-stops:0in"><span style="font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language: HE">On the first issue, Counsel argued that a faulty service of a process goes to the roots of the case, and it affects the jurisdiction of the Court. Such issue <br> can be raised at any time and it can never be alien to the proceedings. <br> <b>See <i>N. V. B. vs. Samba Pet Co. (2006) </i>13 <i>NWLR (Pt. </i>993) 98</b>. Counsel Stated that the Applicant herein is a bank is not in issue, which its address is at Lagos is equally incontrovertible. In Exhibit DB, the Respondent's Counsel <br> addressed the letter to the Applicant at <i>PGD's Place, Plot </i>4, <i>Block 5, <br> Landbridge Avenue Oniru, Off Lekki-Epe Expressway, Lagos.<o:p></o:p></i></span></p> <p class="Style" style="margin-right:2.1pt;text-align:justify;tab-stops:0in"><span style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-ansi-language:EN-US; mso-bidi-language:HE;mso-bidi-font-style:italic"> </span></p> <p class="Style" style="margin-right:2.1pt;text-align:justify;tab-stops:0in"><span style="font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language: HE;mso-bidi-font-style:italic">He further argued that<i> </i></span><span style="font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language: HE">service of a process on a bank should be at its headquarters. If not there, then it must be on any of its principal officers who all reside at Lagos. See paragraph 6 of the affidavit in support of the Motion and <i>Order </i>7(6) <i>of the Rules </i>of this Court. But the Respondent <br> choose to serve Applicant at No. 4 MCC Road, Owerri of Imo State. Counsel urged the Court to condemn this suspicious mode of service. The recipient, the <br> branch secretary, cannot be one of the principal officers envisaged by <br> the <i>Companies and Allied Matters Act </i>and the said <i>Order </i>7(6) <i>of the <br> Rules </i>of this Court. See paragraphs </span><span style="font-family:"Comic Sans MS"; mso-bidi-font-family:Arial;mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language:HE">8 </span><span style="font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language: HE">and 10 of the affidavit in support <br> of the Motion. In <b><i>PHCN vs. Ogunsuyi (2013) LPELR-19838 (CA) Pg. 26BC</i></b><i>, </i>the Court of Appeal held that: <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Style" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:2.1pt;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;tab-stops:0in"><i><span style="font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language: HE">“A <b>principal officer<span style="color:#313238"> of a company has been interpreted to <br> mean and in</span><span style="color:#19181E">cl</span><span style="color:#313238">ude one who can pass as the alter ego of such <br> a company .</span></b></span></i><span style="font-family:"Comic Sans MS"; color:#313238;mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language:HE">.. </span><i><span style="font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language: HE">It is not the respondent's case that service was <br> effected under the first method, because David Agwu the Senior <br> Clerical Officer cum Time Keeper of the appellant who was <br> served with the writ of summons at Obudu can hardly qualify as <br> Director, secretary or other principal officer of the appellant”. <o:p></o:p></span></i></p> <p class="Style" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:.7pt;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:7.1pt;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";color:#313238;mso-ansi-language: EN-US;mso-bidi-language:HE"> </span></p> <p class="Style" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:.7pt;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:7.1pt;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:"Comic Sans MS";color:#313238;mso-ansi-language:EN-US; mso-bidi-language:HE">Counsel submitted that a mere branch secretary of a bank does not fit into that description because he cannot pass for the alter ego of the bank. At <br> Page 22CF of the above decision, his lordship emphasised that the <br> </span><span style="font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-ansi-language:EN-US; mso-bidi-language:HE">provision on service on a corporation must be strictly adhered to. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Style" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:4.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-font-width:107%;mso-ansi-language:EN-US; mso-bidi-language:HE"> </span></p> <p class="Style" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:"Comic Sans MS"; mso-font-width:107%;mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language:HE">Counsel referred to the case of </span><b><i><span style="font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language: HE">Integrated Builders vs. Domzaq (Nig) Ltd </span></i></b><b><span style="font-family:"Comic Sans MS"; mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language:HE">(1994) 2 <i>NWLR (Pt. </i>327) <i>420</i></span></b><i><span style="font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language: HE">, where </span></i><span style="font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-ansi-language: EN-US;mso-bidi-language:HE">service of the writ of summons was effected on the secretary to the Managing Director of the company. The Court held that the service was irregular and ineffectual. Also in <b><i>Kraus Thomson Organization vs. University of Calabar (2004) </i>9 <i>NWLR (Pt. </i>879) 631 SC, </b>it was held that service of the process on the University at its liaison office was improper and contrary to S. 78 <i>of the CAMA. </i><b>The Court reasoned that there was no way principal officers of the University could be readily <br> available at its liaison office. </b>The Court observed inter alia. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Style" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:24.9pt;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:49.2pt;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify"><i><span style="font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language: HE">"I am of the view ... that a body corporate in this context, either a <br> company registered under the companies and Allied Matters Act <br> 1990 or a registered corporation such as the respondent in this <br> case, can only be served under the relevant rules of court by giving <br> the writ of summons or document to any Director, Trustee, <br> Secretary or other Principal Officer of the Body Corporate to be <br> served or by leaving the same at its Registered or Head Office. It is bad or ineffective to serve the documents at any Branch </span></i><i><span style="font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-font-family:Arial;mso-font-width: 92%;mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language:HE">Office." <o:p></o:p></span></i></p> <p class="Style" style="margin-right:1.9pt;text-align:justify;tab-stops:0in"><span style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-ansi-language:EN-US; mso-bidi-language:HE"> </span></p> <p class="Style" style="margin-right:1.9pt;text-align:justify;tab-stops:0in"><span style="font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language: HE">Counsel further stated that the Apex Court, in the determination of the official residence of a company or corporation for the purpose of service of originating processes, opined as follows: <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Style" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:1.9pt;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;tab-stops:0in"><i><span style="font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language: HE">"It has been judicially pronounced that the residence of a <br> corporation is the place of its <b>central management and control. <br> </b>This is the place where the Board of Directors functions or the <br> place of business of the Managing Director of that of the parent <br> company and <b>not a branch office </b>or liaison office. It does appear <br> reasonable to say that what would determine the residence of a university such as the respondent herein may be the place of its <br> central management and control. This is the place where the vice- <br> chancellor works or the main campus</span></i><i><span style="font-family:"Comic Sans MS"; mso-bidi-font-family:Arial;mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language:HE">." </span></i><i><span style="font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-ansi-language:EN-US; mso-bidi-language:HE"> </span></i><span style="font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language: HE"><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Style" style="text-align:justify;tab-stops:4.8pt"><span style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-ansi-language:EN-US; mso-bidi-language:HE"> </span></p> <p class="Style" style="text-align:justify;tab-stops:4.8pt"><span style="font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language: HE">Still on the issue of the service, Counsel posits that service of a Court process, such as a Writ of Summons, Statement of Claim, hearing notice, etc, ought to be on a director or secretary of the company. <b>This is so because the stated processes are documents that require authentication by the company on being served. </b>This means that the relevant receiving officer ought to sign for the document upon receipt of same. He referred the Court to S. 77 <i>of the Companies and Allied Matters Act Cap C20 LFN 2004 (CAMA). </i>No principal officer authenticated the bailiffs’ purported service on the Applicant. For this reason, Counsel urged the Court to strike out all the affidavits of service filed in this suit in respect of the Applicant. Counsel indicated that he is not unaware of the provision of <i>Order </i>7(6) of the Rules of this Court but submitted that same is expressly made subject to the law the company was registered under, and that law is the CAMA, <b>therefore, <i>Order </i>7(6) is Subject to S. 77 </b><i>of the <b>CAMA </b></i>(which is also a<b> </b>federal legislation). <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Style" style="margin-right:.7pt;text-align:justify;tab-stops:4.8pt"><span style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-ansi-language:EN-US; mso-bidi-language:HE"> </span></p> <p class="Style" style="margin-right:.7pt;text-align:justify;tab-stops:4.8pt"><span style="font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language: HE">Consequently, Counsel urged the Court to resolve this issue in the negative and set aside the service of the Writ on the Applicant's branch secretary.<b> </b>Counsel sought for cost of <s>N</s>l00,000<b>.<o:p></o:p></b></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:4.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-font-width:107%;mso-bidi-language:HE"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-font-width:107%;mso-bidi-language:HE">Regarding issue two, counsel submitted that by the provision of the law, any document or process signed </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"; mso-font-width:118%;mso-bidi-language:HE">by </span><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-font-width:107%;mso-bidi-language:HE">a legal practitioner must have the seal approved by the Nigerian Bar Association. He referred to </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"; mso-bidi-language:HE;mso-bidi-font-style:italic">Rule 10 of the Rules of Professional Conduct for Legal Practitioners, </span><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-font-width:107%;mso-bidi-language:HE">2007, which provides as follows: <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:70.85pt;text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE; mso-bidi-font-style:italic"> (1) A lawyer acting in his capacity as a legal practitioner, legal officer or adviser of any Government department or ministry or any corporation, shall not sign </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"; mso-font-width:118%;mso-bidi-language:HE">or </span><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-font-width:107%;mso-bidi-language:HE; mso-bidi-font-style:italic">file a legal document unless there </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-font-width:113%; mso-bidi-language:HE">is </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"; mso-font-width:107%;mso-bidi-language:HE;mso-bidi-font-style:italic">affixed on any such document a seal and stamp approved by the Nigerian Bar Association. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:70.9pt;text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE; mso-bidi-font-style:italic">(2) For the purpose of this rule, "legal documents" shall include pleadings, affidavits, depositions, applications, instruments, agreements, deeds, letters, memoranda, reports, legal opinions or any similar documents. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:1.0in;text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE; mso-bidi-font-style:italic">(3) If, without complying with the requirements of this rule, a lawyer sings or files any legal documents as defined in sub- rule </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-font-width:113%; mso-bidi-language:HE">(2) </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE;mso-bidi-font-style:italic">of this rule, and in any of the capacities mentioned in sub-rule </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-font-width:107%; mso-bidi-language:HE">(1), </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE;mso-bidi-font-style:italic">the document so signed or filed shall be deemed not to have been properly signed or filed. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:4.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-font-width:106%;mso-bidi-language:HE"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-font-width:106%;mso-bidi-language:HE">He argued that the Respondent filed this suit on 7/6/16 which period falls within the time approved for the use of the seal to be effective. He did not append his seal to the Writ of Summons, Statement of Claim and deposition thereof. Essentially, the Writ of Summons, Statement of Claim and deposition filed in this suit are incompetent and ought to be discountenanced.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:4.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-font-width:106%;mso-bidi-language:HE"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS";color:#333339;mso-bidi-language:HE">It is Counsel submission that the absence of the seal and stamp <br> makes the processes voidable and would be set aside if Applicant <br> complains. There is no better way of complaining than the preliminary <br> objection in these presents. The Court of Appeal had earlier been called upon to rule on the attitude of legal practitioners who do not obey the directives of the Bar Association. The said Court found that it is the sacred position of the law that a legal practitioner is bound by the directive of the Bar Association. <br> </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language: HE">See <b><i>Chinwo vs. Owhonda (2008) </i>3 <i>NWLR (Pt. 1074) at P.358</i></b><i>,<b> General Bello </b></i></span><b><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-font-family:Arial; mso-font-width:107%;mso-bidi-language:HE">Sorkin </span></i></b><b><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE">Yaki vs. Senator Abubakar Atiku Bagudu (2015) </span></i></b><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-font-width:112%; mso-bidi-language:HE">249 </span></b><b><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE">LRCN </span></i></b><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Comic Sans MS";mso-font-width:112%;mso-bidi-language:HE">1, </span></b><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE">the Supreme Court of Nigeria held that a process filed without the Bar seal is improperly signed and filed. This finally settles the issue. The Court, as per Odili, JSC, specifically held: </span></i><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-font-width:106%;mso-bidi-language:HE"><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Style" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:23.0pt;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:64.05pt;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify"><i><span style="font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language: HE">"Therefore any non-compliance with the Rule 10(2) of RPC, with the circular of the Chief justice of Nigeria as a reiteration, is <br> visited with the sanction that <b>the process is without <br> competence. </b>It cannot be excused ... /I <o:p></o:p></span></i></p> <p class="Style" style="margin-right:2.4pt;text-align:justify;tab-stops:.7pt 36.95pt"><span style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-ansi-language:EN-US; mso-bidi-language:HE;mso-bidi-font-style:italic"> </span></p> <p class="Style" style="margin-right:2.4pt;text-align:justify;tab-stops:.7pt 36.95pt"><span style="font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language: HE;mso-bidi-font-style:italic">Counsel submitted that<i> </i></span><span style="font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language: HE">no amount of a regularising Order can save the situation as no application can be brought now to regularise it because the failure relates to a document that is attached to an originating process. In <b><i>Alhaji Fatai Ayodele Alawiye vs. Adetokunbo Ogunsanya (2012) LPELR- 19661 (SC),</i></b><i> </i><b>the Supreme Court held that suits not initiated by due process of law are nullities. </b>In <b><i>Odejayi Vs. Henley Industries Limited (2013) LPELR-20368(CA) P. </i>27</b>, the Court of Appeal held: <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Style" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:1.2pt;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:36.95pt;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:-36.95pt; tab-stops:.2pt 35.25pt"><b><i><span style="font-family:"Comic Sans MS"; mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language:HE"> A defective writ of summons is void ab initio. It is a nullity <br> and cannot be amended. Indeed all proceedings based on it <br> are a nullity. </span></i></b><i><span style="font-family:"Comic Sans MS"; mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language:HE">On the issue of substantial justice, Tobi J.S.C. in <br> Dada </span></i><span style="font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-font-family: Arial;mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language:HE">v </span><i><span style="font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language: HE">Dosunmu [2006] </span></i><span style="font-family:"Comic Sans MS"; mso-font-width:123%;mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language:HE">18 </span><i><span style="font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language: HE">NWLR (Pt.1010) observed: "The <br> role of the court is to apply the principles of substantial justice <br> according to law. The principles cannot be applied outside the <br> law or in contradiction of the law. A court of law will not be <br> performing its role as an independent umpire if it bends <br> backward to do justice to one of the parties, at the expense of <br> the other party. <o:p></o:p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:4.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE">It is Counsel’s contention that the Supreme Court having held that a lawyer must affix the seal, the doctrine of <i>stare decisis </i>demands that all other Courts in the land are bound to follow it. <b>See <i>Ugwuanyi vs. Nicon Insurance PLC (2013) 220 LRCN (Pt. </i>2) @ <i>90J].</i></b><i> </i> <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:4.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-font-width:106%;mso-bidi-language:HE"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-font-width:106%;mso-bidi-language:HE">Consequently, Counsel urged the Court to resolve this issue in the negative and set aside the claims of the Respondent.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:4.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-font-width:106%;mso-bidi-language:HE"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE">In opposing the application, the Claimant filed a 6 - paragraph counter affidavit and one exhibit upon which he will rely particularly, paragraphs 3 to 6. In the written address filed alongside, Counsel raised two issues for determination as follows: <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Style" style="margin-top:.45pt;margin-right:.45pt;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:17.5pt;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify"><b><span style="font-family:"Comic Sans MS"; mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language:HE">Whether in the light of the Claimant's counter affidavit and the admission of the Defendant that it was duly served the originating processes in this action via its MCC Road Owerri Branch Secretary, the application seeking to terminate this suit in limine is sustainable. <o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="Style" style="margin-top:.2pt;margin-right:.25pt;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:38.4pt;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:-38.4pt; tab-stops:35.75pt"><span style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"; mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language:HE"> </span></p> <p class="Style" style="margin-top:.2pt;margin-right:.25pt;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language: HE">In arguing the issue, Counsel submitted that in the light of the Claimant's counter affidavit and the admission of the Defendant that it was duly served the originating processes in this action via its MCC Road Owerri Branch Secretary, the application seeking to terminate this suit in limine is not sustainable in both law and equity. The attack on the suit is hinged on two major planks - improper service and absence of NBA's stamp/seal on the copy of the writ served on the Defendant. Counsel stated that the Defendant's grouse is that the Branch Secretary is not a principal officer of the bank as an incorporated entity by virtue of the CAMA. Counsel humbly submitted that this argument is grossly misconceived. By Order 7 Rule 6 of the National Industrial Court Rules, 2007, the service of the processes in this suit on the said Branch Secretary is proper and unimpeachable. Further, the said Rule stated that such processes can be served on the Defendant "by delivery to the director, secretary, trustee, or other senior, principal or RESPONSIBLE officer ... or by leaving it at the registered, principal or advertised office or PLACE OF BUSINESS ... within jurisdiction". <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Style" style="margin-right:.45pt;text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-ansi-language:EN-US; mso-bidi-language:HE"> </span></p> <p class="Style" style="margin-right:.45pt;text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language: HE">Counsel submitted that this rule has received sound judicial approval in the Supreme Court case of <b>Aghanelo vs. Union Bank PLC (2000) FWLR (Pt. 13) 2197 at 2213, B - C</b> per <b>AYOOLA,JSC</b> who stated the law so succinctly thus:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Style" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:.45pt;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:71.2pt;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language: HE"> " ... Where an allegation of negligent act is made against a corporate body, such as the Defendant, doing business throughout several branches, it is inconsequential to the question of liability whether the acts were done through one of the branches or another, what is material is whether the negligent act alleged against the corporate body has been proved. There is no doubt that the act of a branch is the act of the company, just as the act of an employee of the company done in the course of his employment makes the company vicariously liable, regardless of the branch from which he operates .... " <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Style" style="margin-right:.2pt;text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-font-width:105%; mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language:HE"> </span></p> <p class="Style" style="margin-right:.2pt;text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-font-width:105%;mso-ansi-language:EN-US; mso-bidi-language:HE">It is Counsel’s further submission that the branch of a corporate entity is treated, in law, as equivalent to an independent whole, especially for purposes of litigation affecting the company. Also, by Order </span><span style="font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language: HE">2 Rule 1 of the National Industrial Court Rules, 2007, one can conveniently file a suit against a Defendant where it carries on business. That means that you can also serve any responsible officer of the Defendant in that branch. Accordingly, the Secretary of the Defendant at its MCC Road Owerri Branch qualifies as a senior, principal and or responsible staff who can receive Court processes. Counsel stated that it must be understood that the essence of filing a suit where the Defendant has sufficient presence is to ease the process of enforcement of the judgment against the Defendant if the action eventually succeeds. Counsel relied on the case of <b>Eimskip </b><b>vs. Exquisite Industries (Nig.) Ltd (2003) FWLR (Pt. 151) 1842.</b> Counsel further stated that the importance of service is to bring the existence of the suit to the attention of the Defendant to enable him enter his defence one way or the other. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Style" style="margin-right:.2pt;text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-font-width:105%; mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language:HE"> </span></p> <p class="Style" style="margin-right:.2pt;text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-font-width:105%;mso-ansi-language:EN-US; mso-bidi-language:HE">On the issue of the non-fixture of NBA stamp/seal Counsel submitted that it has no factual foundation whatsoever since the original writ of summons in the Court's file has the seal of C. </span><span style="font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language: HE">C. Nwaodu, Esq. who prepared the process. See Exhibit A. Counsel submitted that it is trite that the Court's file is the only valid document one can resort to for any complaint of irregularity and not necessarily the service or counterpart copies of a given process. Therefore, had the Defendant bothered to conduct a simple search into the Court's file, it would have discovered the superfluity or sheer pedantry of that ground of objection. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Style" style="margin-right:.2pt;text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-font-width:105%; mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language:HE"> </span></p> <p class="Style" style="margin-right:.2pt;text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-font-width:105%;mso-ansi-language:EN-US; mso-bidi-language:HE">Finally, Counsel respectfully urged the Court to dismiss the application with heavy cost as the application totally lacking in any form of merit. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Style" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:.2pt;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:71.7pt;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-font-width:105%; mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language:HE"> </span></p> <p class="Style" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:.2pt;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:143.7pt;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-indent:.3pt;line-height:14.6pt; mso-line-height-rule:exactly"><b><u><span style="font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-font-width:105%;mso-ansi-language:EN-US; mso-bidi-language:HE">COURT’S DECISION<o:p></o:p></span></u></b></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE">The facts relied on by the Defendant in this application are contained in the affidavit of one Eugene Ejiofor who said he is the Secretary of Defendant's branch at 4 MCC Road, Owerri. He averred that the headquarters, registered, principal and advertised office of the Defendant is at Lagos and all the principal officers of the Defendant ordinarily stay at the said head office of the Defendant at Lagos but the processes in this suit was served on him at the Defendant’s No. 4 MCC Road, Owerri branch. The deponent also stated that the Writ of Summons and the accompanying processes were not sealed by Chigozirim C. Nwaodu, Esq, who signed the processes, contrary to the provisions of the law.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:4.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-font-width:105%;mso-bidi-language:HE"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-font-width:105%;mso-bidi-language:HE">The Claimant’s counter affidavit to the motion was deposed to by </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE">Christiana Iba, a litigation secretary in the law firm representing the Claimant in this proceeding. In the counter affidavit the deponent’s averments that the Defendant’s branch secretary at No. 4, MCC Road, Owerri is a principal and responsible officer of the Defendant who undertakes serious administrative responsibilities and liases with other branches and headquarters. It was also stated that Chigozirim. C. Nwaodu, Esq., who signed and sealed the writ of summons, is a Barrister & Solicitor of the Supreme Court of Nigeria and also affixed his NBA stamp. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 4pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">From the prayers sought by the Defendant in this application and the submissions of its counsel in the written address, the Defendant’s complaint against this suit is on 2 grounds. The grounds are-<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-indent:-.5in"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">1. The processes in this suit were not served on the defendant at its head office nor on any of its principal officers.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-indent:-.5in"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">2. The Writ of Summons and other processes were not affixed with the NBA stamp of the counsel who signed the processes. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-indent:-.5in"><span style="font-size: 4pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">I shall </span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">consider each of these identified grounds or prayers in the Defendant’s application.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-indent:-.5in"><span style="font-size: 4pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">The processes in this suit were served at the Defendant’s No. 4 MCC Road, Owerri branch and it was received by the branch secretary. Let me mention that the Defendant has entered appearance in this suit, even though conditionally. It has also filed a statement of defence where it indicated an intention to raise the objections now contained in this application. The Defendant is now contending in this application that the processes were not served at the Defendant’s head office at Lagos or on any of its principal officers who all reside at Lagos. The Defendant’s counsel cited Section 78 of the Companies and Allied Matters Act and Order 7, Rule 6 of the Rules of this Court in support of his submissions. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 4pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">Section 78 of CAMA provides thus:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify"><b><i><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">“A <u>court process</u> shall be served on a company in the manner provided by the Rules of Court and <u>any other document</u> may be served on a company by leaving it at, or sending it by post to, the registered office or head office of the company”.</span></i></b><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";"><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 4pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">By this provision, when it is a Court process, service on a company is to be effected only as provided in the rules of the Court issuing the process. In that case, let me examine what the rules of this Court say about service on companies. Order 7, Rule 6 provide as follows:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify"><b><i><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">“subject to any statutory provision regulating service on a registered company, corporation or body corporate, every originating process or other process requiring personal service may be served on the organization by delivery to a director, secretary, trustee or other senior or responsible officer of the organization or by leaving it at the registered, principal or advertised office or place of business of the organization within the jurisdiction</span></i></b><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">.”<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 4pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">This provision has given several alternative means of service on a company. Among the ways a company can be served is service by leaving the processes at the place of business of the company within jurisdiction of the court. Facts deposed by both parties in their affidavit show that the Defendant has a branch office at No. 4 MCC Road, Owerri where it does business. The branch is within the jurisdiction of this court and the Defendant was served in that place of business of the Defendant. By effect of the above provision of the rules of this court, the Defendant can be served at its said branch being its place of business within the jurisdiction of this court. What is more, the Defendant has become aware of this suit through the service on its branch office and has even filed a defence to the suit. I do not think the issue of how the Defendant was served matters any longer, even though the rules of this court permit the mode of service. In my view, the service on the Defendant is proper, valid and cannot be set aside. Consequently, the 1<sup>st</sup> order sought by the Defendant in this application is refused.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 4pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE;mso-bidi-font-style:italic">I have examined the processes filed by the Claimant in this suit and I find that the NBA stamp of the counsel who issued the complaint was duly affixed to the Complaint, even though the said stamp was not affixed on the accompanying processes. Perhaps the one served on the Defendant did not carry the stamp. This may have been an oversight. The one in the court’s file carries the lawyers’ stamp on the complaint but not on the accompanying processes. In any case, it was on this ground the Defendant has urged this court to strike out the suit for being incompetent. The argument of the Defendant’s counsel on this point, though brilliant, is of no moment in this instance. The requirement for sealing of court processes has not taken away counsel’s right to practice as a Barrister and Solicitor of the Supreme Court of Nigeria. While the right to practice is sacrosanct, there are laws or regulations regulating that right. These include the Legal Practitioners Act and the Rules of Professional Conduct for Legal Practitioners, </span><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-font-width:107%;mso-bidi-language:HE">2007. </span><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language: HE;mso-bidi-font-style:italic">The RPC is made pursuant to the Legal Practitioners Act 2004. It makes the RPC a subsidiary legislation and imbues it with a force of law. <i><o:p></o:p></i></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"; mso-bidi-language:HE;mso-bidi-font-style:italic"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"; mso-bidi-language:HE;mso-bidi-font-style:italic">Rule 10 of the RPC </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-font-width:107%; mso-bidi-language:HE">provides as follows: <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.25in"><b><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE">(1) A lawyer acting in his capacity as a legal practitioner, legal officer or adviser of any Government department or ministry or any corporation, shall not sign </span></i></b><b><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Comic Sans MS";mso-font-width:118%;mso-bidi-language:HE">or </span></i></b><b><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-font-width:107%;mso-bidi-language:HE">file a legal document unless there </span></i></b><b><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Comic Sans MS";mso-font-width:113%;mso-bidi-language:HE">is </span></i></b><b><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-font-width:107%;mso-bidi-language:HE">affixed on any such document a seal and stamp approved by the Nigerian Bar Association. <o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.25in"><b><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE">(2) For the purpose of this rule, "legal documents" shall include pleadings, affidavits, depositions, applications, instruments, agreements, deeds, letters, memoranda, reports, legal opinions or any similar documents. <o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.25in"><b><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE">(3) If, without complying with the requirements of this rule, a lawyer sings or files any legal documents as defined in sub- rule </span></i></b><b><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-font-width:113%; mso-bidi-language:HE">(2) </span></i></b><b><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE">of this rule, and in any of the capacities mentioned in sub-rule </span></i></b><b><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-font-width:107%; mso-bidi-language:HE">(1), </span></i></b><b><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE">the document so signed or filed shall be deemed not to have been properly signed or filed.<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:4.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE;mso-bidi-font-style:italic"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE;mso-bidi-font-style:italic">This rule requires that every process filed by counsel in court must be sealed with the NBA Stamp. The effect of failure to affix the stamp is that the process will be deemed improperly signed or filed. The Supreme Court has given judicial thrust to the provision of Rules 10 of RPC in a decision </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">delivered on 27<sup>th</sup> October 2015 in <b>Appeal No: SC/722/15 </b>between <b>ALL PROGRESSIVES CONGRESS vs. GENERAL BELLO SARKIN YAKI</b></span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"; mso-bidi-language:HE;mso-bidi-font-style:italic">. The Supreme Court stated in that case that such a document filed without the seal, even though signed and filed is not proper in law for the reason that the condition precedent for its proper signing and filing has not been met. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:4.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE;mso-bidi-font-style:italic"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE;mso-bidi-font-style:italic">The RPC was made in February 2007</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Comic Sans MS";mso-font-width:106%;mso-bidi-language:HE"> but the Nigerian Bar Association made the use of the seal/stamp compulsory as </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE; mso-bidi-font-style:italic">from 1<sup>st</sup> April 2015. The Claimant filed this suit on 7<sup>th</sup> June 2016. I recall however the directive of the Chief Justice of Nigeria to all the Heads of Court,</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS""> contained in his Lordship’s letter dated 12<sup>th</sup> May 2015, to</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE; mso-bidi-font-style:italic"> enforce and</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS""> implement the NBA stamp policy starting from 1<sup>st</sup> June 2015</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"; mso-bidi-language:HE;mso-bidi-font-style:italic">. </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">This suit was filed after the directive was handed down. Therefore, it is not exempted from full compliance with the stamp and seal policy/rule.</span><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE;mso-bidi-font-style: italic"><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:4.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE;mso-bidi-font-style:italic"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">Before I conclude, let me comment on the argument of the Defendant’s counsel that non-sealing or stamping of the processes render them incompetent and the suit liable to be struck out. The Supreme Court, in the <b>ALL PROGRESSIVES CONGRESS vs. GENERAL BELLO SARKIN YAKI </b>case has explained the effect of not affixing the NBA stamp to a court process. The unanimous view of their Lordships in the Supreme Court is that failure to affix a stamp to court processes in contravention of Rule 10 RPC 2007 only renders the process irregular or voidable. It was also held that the irregularity can be cured by simply affixing the stamp. Nwali Ngwuta JSC, who read the lead judgment, expressed the view that such a process even though signed and filed is not null and void or incompetent. He further said: </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE;mso-bidi-font-style:italic"><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify"><b><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">“In such a case, the filing of the process can be regularized by extension of time and deeming order. In the case at hand, the process filed in breach of Rule 10 (1) of the Rules of Professional Conduct for Legal Practitioners 2007 can be saved and it’s signing and filing regularized by affixing the approved seal and stamp on it. It is a legal document improperly filed and the affixing of the stamp and seal would make the filing proper in law.”<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify;tab-stops:399.0pt"><span style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify;tab-stops:399.0pt"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">Therefore, in my view, the Claimant’s processes are not incompetent as argued by the Defendant’s counsel, especially as the lawyer’s stamp is duly affixed on the Complaint which is the main originating process. Even though the other processes requires the lawyer’s stamp, I shall consider them as merely only irregular or voidable. They can be validated or regularized by affixing the stamp. I shall allow the Claimant the opportunity to validate the processes in the interest of justice. Accordingly, the Claimant’s counsel is given on or before the return date of this matter to affix to the relevant processes, that is the copies of this court and that of the Defendant, the NBA stamp or seal of the counsel. Failure to comply will make this court to revisit the issue on the return date.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify;tab-stops:399.0pt"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">For the avoidance of doubt, it is ordered as follows:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 4pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.25in;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo2"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-fareast-font-family:"Comic Sans MS"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">a.<span style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">The Defendant’s application for striking out of this suit is hereby refused. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.25in;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo2"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-fareast-font-family:"Comic Sans MS"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">b.<span style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">Leave is granted to the Claimant’s counsel to validate his processes by affixing the NBA stamp and seal on the relevant processes (that is the copies of this court and that of the Defendants) on or before the return date of matter.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">No order as to cost.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">Ruling is entered accordingly.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"><b><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">Hon. Justice O. Y. Anuwe<o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">Judge<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><b><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;color:#2F2F35;mso-font-width:107%;mso-bidi-language:HE"> </span></b><span style="font-size:13.5pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:#2F2F36;mso-bidi-language:HE"><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB"> </span></p>