Download PDF
The claimant filed a complaint against the defendants on 1st February 2011 for the interpretation of collective agreements and other contractual documents pursuant to section 7(1)(c)(i) of the National Industrial Court Act 2006 and specifically for: 1. A declaration that by virtue of Article V(D) of the Collective Agreement between the 1st defendant and its branch of the Petroleum and Natural Gas Senior Staff Association of Nigeria made on 1st December 1996, the claimant is entitled to his accrued and earned terminal benefits on a continuous basis regardless of the fact that he was transferred to other locations of the 1st defendant or defendants. 2. A declaration that by virtue of and under the existing or extant collective agreement between the 1st defendant and its branch of the Petroleum and Natural Gas Senior Staff Association of Nigeria, the claimant’s disengagement entitlement is the sum of N44,782,230.13 in addition to the sum of N6,229,937 calculated from the 1st day of May 1991 when he was employed by the defendants until the 13th day of August 2010 when he was declared redundant. 3. A declaration that the claimant is entitled to the sum of CAD 7,495.78 (Canadian dollars) being outstanding expense claim. Accompanying the complaint is the statement of facts, list of witnesses to be called at the trial and list of documents to be relied on. In reaction, the defendants entered a conditional appearance on 9th March 2011. On 26th May 2011, the 1st and 2nd defendants filed a motion on notice praying for the following order: (1) An order setting aside the service on the 1st and 2nd defendants of the complaint and all other processes in this suit meant for service on the 3rd defendant on record, Schlumberger Limited. The grounds upon which this motion is brought are: (1) The complaint and all other processes in this suit endorsed for service on the 3rd defendant on record, Schlumberger Limited, were delivered or left at the offices of the 1st and 2nd defendants in this suit, which are not the same as, and are different and distinct from Schlumberger Limited, the 3rd defendant on record. (2) This Honourable Court lacks the jurisdiction to hear and entertain this suit as against the 3rd defendant on record. The motion is supported by a 6-paragraphed affidavit sworn to by Emmanuel Ajose, a litigation clerk. The claimant in response filed a 7-paragraphed counter-affidavit which was sworn to by Chukwuyem Atewe, his counsel on the 15th June 2011. Parties agreed to argue this application on the record and filed written addresses. The applicants’ written address is dated 23rd September 2011 and filed on the same day. The respondent’s address is dated 4th October 2011 but filed on the 5th October 2011. The applicant did not file a reply on point of law. The applicants raised one issue for determination as follows: Whether the purported service on the applicants of the complaint and other processes meant for service on the 3rd defendant on record is not improper in law and, therefore, liable to be set aside by this Honourable court. Learned counsel to the applicant submitted that the service on the applicants of the complaint and other processes meant for service on the 3rd defendant is improper in law and liable to be set aside. He relied on paragraphs 4a to 4d of the affidavit in support of this submission which is reproduced as follows: 4. At about 3.45 pm on Wednesday, 25th May 2011 and at about 4.30 pm on the same date, I was informed by Ms. Foluso Falade, Legal Attorney of the 1st defendant/applicant and Mrs. Adejoke Odocha, Legal Attorney of the 2nd defendant/applicant in the course of two separate telephone conversations in our office at St. Nicholas House (10th Floor), Catholic Mission Street, Lagos, and I verily believe them: (a) That they have each reviewed the complaint and other processes in this suit and observed that the originating and all other processes in this suit were endorsed for service on the 3rd defendant on record but were delivered or left at the offices of the 1st and 2nd defendants/applicants at 17/19, Idowu Taylor Street, Victoria Island, Lagos. (b) That the 3rd defendant on record, Schlumberger Limited, is a foreign company and is not a company duly registered in Nigeria under the Laws of the Federal Republic of Nigeria and does not have any office, place of business or address for service of court processes at 17/19, Idowu Taylor Street, Victoria Island, Lagos or any other location in Nigeria. (c) That the 3rd defendant on record is not the same as, and is a different and distinct entity from the 1st and 2nd defendants/applicants at whose offices the originating and other processes in this suit were purportedly delivered or left by the Bailiff of this Honourable court for service on the 3rd defendant on record. (d) That the originating and all other processes in the suit meant for service on the 3rd defendant were delivered at the offices of the 1st and 2nd defendants/applicants in the mistaken belief and assumption that the 3rd defendant on record, Schlumberger Limited, has its registered address, place of business and/or address for service at the 1st and 2nd defendants/applicants’ offices at 17/19, Idowu Taylor Street, Victoria Island, Lagos. He referred to Order 7 Rule 1(1) of the Rules of this court and submitted that the effect of this Rule is that the originating process ought to have been served personally on the 3rd defendant at its registered office or principal place of business and any other mode of service of the complaint is improper in law and a grave violation of the Rules on service of originating process. He submitted that there is no provision in the Rules by which a person or party other than the party on record can be served with originating processes. He referred to Eimskip Ltd v. Exquisite Ind. Ltd [2003] 4 NWLR (Pt. 809) 88 at 123 and Idiata v. Ejeko [2005] 11 NWLR (Pt. 936) 346 at 365 and submitted that service of a process on a person who is not an agent of the party in a case is not proper service in law. He urged the court to set aside the service on the applicants of the complaint and other processes in this suit meant for the 3rd defendant. Replying, learned counsel to the respondent referred to Order 7 Rule 1(1) and Rule 7 of the Rules of this court. He submitted that the address endorsed on the complaint and accompanying originating processes for service on the applicants is the physical place of abode of the 3rd defendant within jurisdiction and that all business transactions or engagements of the 3rd defendant have always been conducted and carried out at the said address endorsed for service. He submitted that the 3rd defendant resides at that address and that residence has been judicially defined to mean personal and physical presence at a place of abode. He relied on the case of U.B.A. Plc v. Odimayo [2005] (Pt. 909) 21 E – F (incomplete citation). He stated that the respondent was a staff of the applicants and worked interchangeably with the applicants and the 3rd defendant. He submitted that the applicants are the holding offices and representatives of the 3rd defendant within jurisdiction and that the address endorsed for service on the complaint and accompanying originating process for the 3rd defendant is regular and proper as same is its known address within jurisdiction. It was his contention that that the applicants have not placed any material evidence in support of their application to show that the 3rd defendant is not registered, or doing business in Nigeria or that the address endorsed for service on the 3rd defendant does not exist. He stated that a memorandum of appearance has been filed on behalf of the 3rd defendant and the applicants and are, therefore, estopped from denying service or seeking to set aside the originating processes served on the 3rd defendant. He urged the court to strike out the application with substantial costs. Having considered the issue raised in the preliminary objection including the arguments and authorities cited by counsel, the following provisions of the Rules of this court are hereby reproduced: Order 7 Rule 1(1): Any notice or other document required or authorized by these Rules to be served on, or delivered to any person may be served on that person personally or sent by registered post or courier or left at that person’s address for service or, where no address for service has been given, the registered office, principal place of business or last known address, and any notice or other document required or authorized to be served on, or delivered to the court may be sent by registered post or courier or delivered to the Chief Registrar. Order 7 Rule (2): Where a party is represented by a Legal Practitioner, service of court process may be made on such Legal Practitioner or on a person under his or her control. Order 7 Rule 1(1) makes provision for a court process to be served in several ways. Personal service is just one of the ways in which a process may be served. In other words, service of a process is not limited to personal service. There is, therefore, no requirement by the Rules of this court for the complaint and other originating process to be served personally on the 3rd defendant. The submission of the applicants in this regard is misplaced. Order 7 Rule 1(1) also provides that a court process may be left at that person’s address for service. The address for service endorsed on the complaint and accompanying originating processes is 17/19, Idowu Taylor Street Victoria Island which is the same address for service as the applicants. The process server went to this address and served the process for the 3rd defendant. It was received at this address on the 18th February 2011 and acknowledged by the receiver on the process server’s schedule. The fact that the process was received at this address is evidence of the fact that the 3rd defendant is known at this address and maintains a presence there. The manner of service of the originating process is in compliance with Order 7 Rule 1(1) and, therefore, good and proper service in law. On the 8th March 2011, the firm of Udo Udoma & Bello-Osagie entered a conditional appearance for the three defendants. While the Rules of this court have no provisions for appearance under protest, the fact of the same legal representation for the applicants and the 3rd defendant is indicative of the presence of the 3rd defendant at the address endorsed on the complaint. It also shows that the 3rd defendant has been brought to the knowledge that the claimant has made a complaint against it in this court necessitating legal representation. Furthermore, Order 7 Rule 2(2) makes provision for service of court process on a legal practitioner representing a party. This means that the complaint and accompanying originating processes for the 3rd defendant may also be served on the firm of Udo Udoma & Belo-Osagie who are the legal practitioners representing the 3rd defendant. For all the reasons given above, we hold that the 3rd defendant has been duly served with the complaint and other accompanying originating processes and this court has jurisdiction to hear this matter brought against the 3rd defendant. The applicants’ motion lacks merit and is simply brought to waste time. It is hereby dismissed. The matter shall accordingly proceed to hearing. Cost is put at N10,000.00 payable by the 1st and 2nd defendants/applicants to the claimant/respondent. Ruling is entered accordingly. …………………………. Hon. Justice B. B. Kanyip Presiding Judge ……………………………………... ……………………..…………… Hon. Justice O. A. Obaseki-Osaghae Hon. Justice J. T. Agbadu-Fishim Judg