RULING. This deals with two applications one filed by the claimant and the other filed by the defendant. The application filed by the claimant was dated 23/10/18 and filed on the same day. The application was brought pursuant to Order 6 Rules 4(2), Order 57 Rule 4 (1), (2) of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2017 and under the inherent jurisdiction of the court. The application is praying for: 1. An order of this honourable court (ex abundanti cautela) extending time within which the claimant/applicant may apply for the renewal of the General form of complaint dated and filed on 21st November 2017, the time for applying for same having expired. 2. An order of this honourable court (ex abundanti cautela) renewing the claimant’s General form of complaint dated and filed on 21st November 2017, the life span of same having expired. 3. An order of this honourable court setting aside the service of General form of complaint effected on the defendant/respondent on 31st July 2018. 4. And for such further order(s) as this honourable court may deem fit to make in the circumstances. The grounds for the application are as follows:- 1. On 21st November 2017, the claimant instituted this suit against the defendant via General Form of Complaint. 2. 0n 19th December 2017, the defendant was served with the originating processes of the claimant by a bailiff of the court, one Jerimiah Sorakaa. 3. After the service of the Originating process on the defendant, the defendant through its counsel entered a conditional appearance and latterly filed a notice of preliminary objection challenging the jurisdiction of this honourable court to hear the suit based on a purported non-service of the originating process on the defendant in accordance with Order 7 Rule 1(1) (h) (i) of the Rules of this honourable court. The preliminary objection is dated 23rd February 2018 and filed on 1st March 2018. 4. The claimant through his counsel joined issues with the defendant on the preliminary objection through a counter-affidavit and written address in support of the counter-affidavit dated and filed on 5th March 2018. 5. The honourable court sat on 25th April 2018 and the defendant’s preliminary objection was heard and the court adjourned for ruling. 6. The honourable court delivered its ruling on the 13th of July 2018, wherein the honourable court in its well-considered ruling set aside the service of the originating process of 19th December 2017 and directed that a fresh set of processes be served on the defendant. 7. In strict compliance with the order of the court, the claimant’s counsel made available for service on the defendant a new set of originating process which was served by the court’s bailiff, Mr. Emmanuel Sani. 8. By the time another set of originating process was served on the defendant the original lifespan of the originating process has elapses hence the need to bring this application to renew the life of the originating process. 9. In lieu of the facts above, an order of the court renewing the complainant is necessary in the circumstance to give fresh life to the originating process after same has been extinguished by implication of the frivolous preliminary objection of the defendant/respondent dated 23rd February 2018 and filed on 1st March 2018, wherein the ruling on same was delivered on 13th July 2018. 10. The delay occasioned in the service of the originating process of this suit was inadvertent, and not the fault of the claimant. 11. The claimant is desirous of prosecuting his case diligently. The application is supported by a 14 paragraphs affidavit in support. A written address was also filed. ‘‘Whether the court has power to grant this application’’. Olamide Omilaye, Esq; counsel for the claimant answered the question for determination in the affirmative i.e this court has power to grant this application. Counsel argued that the law is settled that an originating process can be renewed. In support of this submission counsel relied on Order 6 Rule 4(2). Counsel submitted that the general form of complaint (originating process) commencing this suit was filed on 21/11/18 and duly served by the Bailiff of this court on the defendant which the defendant maliciously challenged its mode of service via a preliminary objection dated 23/2/18 and filed on 1/3/18. The court thereafter adjourned its ruling which was eventually delivered on the 13/7/18, by which time the initial life span of the originating process had elapsed due to order of court setting aside the initial originating process and ordering for a service of fresh originating process on the defendant. Counsel contended that from the facts deposed to in the affidavit in support as well as the basic grounds upon which this application is brought, the time for seeking for a renewal of the complaint has expired due to circumstances beyond the claimant’s control, hence the application for an extension of time to seek for the renewal of the complaint. It is submitted that this court has requisite power to grant this application, to buttress his contention counsel cited Order 57 Rule 4 (1), (2) of the rules of this court and the case of EJORKEKE V NWAFOR (2008) 15 NWLR (Pt.1110) 418. It is the submission of counsel that the reason why renewal was not sought was the defendant’s preliminary objection which was not ruled upon until after the expiration of the initial 6 months and the order of court setting aside the initial service on the defendant and directing that a new service be effected as well as the inadvertence of counsel to avert his mind to that fact until he got to know about same during further research and it is trite law that where a party to a suit failed procedurally to do anything expected of him by law as a result of the inadvertence of counsel such a litigant should not be punished in any way, as it was decided in the case of ADEOSUN V AKINYEMI (2007) 4 NWLR (PT.1023). While relying on NWABUEZE V OBI OKOYE (1988) 4 NWLR (Pt.91) 664, counsel pray for setting aside service of the originating process effected on the defendant on 31/7/18, on the ground that it was lifeless, as the service was effected after the life span of the process has ended. It is also the submission of counsel that from the facts presented to the court, the claimant has established cogent reasons why the application to renew the writ was brought after the time for bringing same has expired and based on the affidavit evidence, the reason was due to plethora of reasons all beyond the applicant’s power. It is further argued that an application for renewal can be brought at any time before or after the expiration of the originating process. On this contention counsel relied on the Supreme Court decision in the case of KOLAWOLE V ALBERTO (1989) 1 NWLR (Pt.98) 382 It is the contention of counsel that this application was brought to give effect to the rules of this court and so as not to get caught on the web of technicalities that the defendant is seems spreading out on a consistent basis. Counsel urged the court to resolve lone issue in favour of the claimant and grant the application. Jerimiah Idakwoji, Esq; counsel for the defendant did not file any counter-affidavit in opposition. Counsel informed the court that his opposition to this application is on points of law. Counsel referred to Order 6 Rule 4(2) of the rules of this court and submitted that this court should not grant the application, because, it is when it is proved impossible to serve originating process on the defendant that renewal can be granted and in this case the general form of complaint (originating process) has been served. Counsel emphasised that renewal can only be granted if it is impossible to serve, but here it has been served. Therefore, the issue renewal does not arise. The second application was brought by the defendant. The preliminary objection was dated 15/10/18 and filed on 17/10/18. A written address was also filed along with the preliminary objection. The preliminary objection is seeking for an order of this court striking out this suit NICN/ABJ/340/2017, on the ground of lack of jurisdiction to pronounce on the claimant’s lifeless originating process in the six months life-span of the originating process (General Form of Complaint) issued by the registrar of this court Mr. Ibrahim Aminu, on the 21/11/2017, elapsed/expired on 20/5/18 and the aforesaid lifeless originating process was purportedly served on the defendant on the 31/7/18 by the Bailiff of this court Mr. Emmanuel Sani. ‘‘whether the claimant’s originating process (General Form of Complaint) which was issued on the 21/11/17 by the registrar of this court and which was not purportedly served on the defendant on 31/7/18 by the bailiff of this court was legally valid and clothes this honourable court with jurisdiction to entertain the claimant’s suit. In arguing the issue for determination, counsel submitted upon a calm view of the originating process commencing this suit issued on 21/11/17 by the registrar of this court Mr. Ibrahim Aminu, the ruling of this court of 13/7/18 together with proof of service by Emmanuel Sani, the bailiff of this court who purportedly served the claimant’s originating process on the defendant on 31/7/18, the originals of all the court processes forms part of the record of this court. Order 3 Rule 1(1) (a) of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria, (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2017 proceedings may be commenced by complaint as in form 1. The memorandum to be subscribed on the complaint form 1, provide that complaint is to be served within 6 months from the date of the issuance of the complaint. It is the submission of counsel that from the date of issue i.e 21/11/17 to 31/7/18, date of service on the defendant, the lifespan of the complaint has elapsed on 20/5/18. It is argued as at 31/7/18 when the general form of complaint (originating process) was served on the defendant there was no longer any legal originating process to be served on the defendant and therefore this court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the claimant’s originating process in this suit, because the condition precedent to the exercise of jurisdiction is predicated on the existence of a live originating process. Since the originating process is lifeless this court lacks jurisdiction to entertain same in support of this argument counsel relied on the case of KALU MARK & ANOR. V GABRIEL EKE reported (2004) Vol 17 Nigeria Supreme Court Quarterly Law Reports, page 60 at 89, para A-C. It is the argument of counsel that failure to serve valid complaint means the claimant did not fulfil condition precedent to exercise of jurisdiction, in that the suit was not initiated by due process of law. In concluding argument counsel urged the court to uphold the objection and strike out this case for lack of jurisdiction. Olamide Omilade, Esq; counsel for the claimants opposed this application on points of law. Counsel submitted that this application was brought malafide counsel urged the court to dismiss the objection. COURT’S DECISION. I have perused the two applications by counsel for the claimant and that of the defendant. In my view the issues for determination in respect of the two applications are: 1. Whether in view of the facts and circumstances of this suit, the claimant is entitled to the grant of the prayers contained in the motion of 23/10/18. 2. Whether the defendant is entitled to have this suit struck out for lack of jurisdiction due absence of a valid general form of complaint (originating process) commencing this suit’’. When these two applications came before the court counsel were divided as to which of the applications should be taken first. Each of the counsel insisted that his application should be taken first. However, in order to do justice, I decided to hear the two applications together and deliver single ruling this decision was taken in order to avoid further delay. The court also considered the rules of court regarding the issue. The application by the claimant is aimed at curing the defect in the originating process commencing this suit. While the application of the defendant is geared towards extermination of this suit. It is trite law that where two applications are pending one is meant to repair or restore life to the suit before the court and the other meant to terminate the life of the suit, the court is duty bound to first and foremost consider the application that will breathe life into the suit before considering the application that that will abruptly end the life of the action. This is in accord with the principle of doing substantive justice and not technical justice. See Order 18 of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria, (Civil Procedure) Rules 2017. It is against this background that I shall consider the first issue for determination which is meant to cure the defect in the originating process. See NALSA & TEAM ASS. V NNPC (1991) 11 SCNJ 1, CONSORTIUM M. C. 3632 LOT 4 NIG. V NEPA (1991) 7 SCNJ 1. The defendant in this suit did not file any counter-affidavit to the affidavit in support of the motion on notice seeking for extension of time to renew the general form of complaint dated and filed on 21/11/17, renewal of the general form of complaint and setting aside of the service of the general form of complaint on the defendant which was effected on 31/7/18, after the expiry of the life span of the general form of complaint. The failure or neglect by the defendant to counter or controvert the affidavit in support means that the defendant has accepted the facts deposed to in the affidavit in support of the motion on notice as the truth. Furthermore, failure to file counter-affidavit means the respondent has nothing to counter or dispute in the affidavit in support. The law is well settled that, facts in an affidavit not challenged, contradicted nor controverted by a party are deemed to be admitted by him unless such facts on the face of it will lead to absurdity if it is taken to be the truth of what is being sought to be established. Where an affidavit is filed deposing to certain facts and the other party does not file a counter affidavit or a reply to the counter-affidavit, as the case may require, the facts deposed to in the affidavit or counter-affidavit will be deemed unchallenged, undisputed and in essence, admitted. Such admitted evidence require no further proof. See MAISAJE V HASSAN (2004) 11 NWLR (PT.883) 181, EZEANNAH V ATTAH (2004) 7 NWLR (PT.873) 648. An application of this nature is calling for exercise of discretionary power of the court. However, the discretion has to be exercised judicially and judiciously in line with well-established principles of law. Any exercise of discretion must be based on sufficient materials placed before the court. In the case at hand the material facts furnished in the affidavit in support of the motion by the claimant for the reliefs being sought in the motion papers, are unchallenged and uncontroverted, in the circumstance they are hereby accepted as truth. In view of the state of the law, I accept the reasons given in the affidavit in support of this application as the reasons that caused delay that lead to the expiry of the general form of complaint in this suit. In view of the foregoing, I hereby grant extension of time for the claimant to apply for renewal of the general form of complaint as well as renewal of the general form of complaint. Therefore, the life of the general form of complaint in this suit is hereby renewed and granted by three months. This decision is in line with the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of KOLAWOLE V ALBERTO (1989) 1 NWLR (PT.98) 382, where the apex court opined that lifespan of writ of summons can be resuscitated even after the expiry of the writ. The view that it is only during the lifespan that a writ or originating process can be renew was erroneous and not in line with intendment of the law. Such view was also considered to be based on technicality and not on doing substantial justice to the parties which should be the concern of the court. The oral objection of the defendant to this application on the ground that the originating process has been served cannot be valid, in that for such a view to hold water the service must be a service of a valid complaint, which is not the case here. The counsel for the defendant is of the view that the complaint was lifeless, if that is the case then there cannot be said to have a valid service of complaint on the defendant. The law require that the court must be satisfied that it has proved impossible to serve the originating process within its lifespan. The defendant has not shown that the originating summons was actually served within the lifespan of the complaint. Rather the position maintained by the defendant is that the service of the complaint on 31/7/18 was done after the expiration of the lifespan of the complaint has elapsed. This has therefore knocked off the argument of counsel in opposition to this application for extension of time and renewal of the originating process commencing this suit. On setting aside of the service, this court is of the view that service of expired general form of complaint is no service in law. Since there is no service the general form of complaint has no legal consequence as it cannot activate the adjudicatory power of the court. This is because you cannot put something on nothing and expect it to stand, as it will definitely fall. The purported service would have been valid, if there is a valid general form of complaint. In view of this position, I hereby set aside the service for being a nullity. In view of the foregoing, the application of the claimant is meritorious it succeed and is hereby granted. Issue one is resolved in favour of the claimant. The grant of this application is in line with the need for doing substantial justice and not technical justice. This view is strengthened by the consideration of the stage at which this matter is i.e commencement stage. Since issues have not been joined there will not be injustice occasioned against any of the parties. See MOJEED SUARA YUSUF V MADAM IDIATU ADEGOKE & ANOR. 2007 LPELR-3534SC, YUSUF V ADEGOKE 2007 11 NWLR PT.1045 332 RESOLUTION OF ISSUE TWO The defendant has submitted that and urged this court to strike out this suit for lack of jurisdiction on part of the court to pronounce on lifeless originating process general form of complaint as its lifespan of 6 six months lifespan has elapsed on 20/5/18, before its service on 31/7/18. Counsel submitted by order 3 rule 1 (1) (a) of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2017, and the memorandum subscribed on the complaint on form 1, the lifespan of general form of complaint is six months. Since the claimant’s general form of complaint was issued on 21/11/17 by the registrar of this court, the lifespan elapsed on 20/5/18. The general form of complaint having been served by the bailiff of the court on the defendant on 31/7/18, it was served more than two months after the expiry of the general form of complaint. At the time of service it was no longer a legal document. Therefore, this suit was not commenced by due process of law. The counsel for the claimant in his oral reply submitted that the preliminary objection was brought malafide in that the general form of complaint was served within four months but the defendant objected and refuted service. After careful perusal of the defendant’s application for striking out of this suit due to lack of jurisdiction occasioned by absence of a valid originating process. It is the view of this court that with the resolution of issue one in favour of the claimant granting renewal of the general form of complaint, the second issue for determination has become otiose, moot and an academic exercise. See OWNERS OF MV ARABELLA V NIGERIA AGRICULTURAL INSURANCE CORPORATION 2008 LPELR-2848SC, 2008 11 NWLR PT.1097 182. Courts are always enjoined not to embark of academic exercise. The courts are established for determination of live issues. Moot issues are not within the purview of a court. Since it is not business of court to engage in academic exercise the preliminary objection of the defendant must fail and is hereby refused. From the foregoing, issue one has been resolved in favour of the claimant. The general form of complaint (originating Process) commencing this suit is hereby renewed in line with order 6 Rule 4(2) of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2017, for three Months with effect from today. Issue two is resolved against the defendant in that it will be engaging in academic discourse to attempt considering it, which is not within the purview of the jurisdiction of the court to embark on academic exercise. Ruling entered accordingly. Sanusi Kado, Judge.