Download PDF
The Claimants claim against the Defendants jointly and severally are as follows:- 1. N33,759,000 being training allowance the Claimants are entitled to. 2. 1122221000 (sic) being the total Honoraria the Claimants are entitled to; 3. 20% of N145, 980,000 from 14th April 2011 till judgment is entered and their offer (sic) statutory interest until payment is made. By a Motion on Notice dated and filed on the 1st day of November 2013 and brought pursuant to:- (a) Section 78 of the Companies and Allied Matters Act (CAMA) Cap C20, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004; (b) Sections 95 and 97 of the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act Cap C6, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004, and (c) Order 7 Rule 6 of the National Industrial Court of Rule 2007, The 1st Defendant/Applicant seeks an order of this honorable court striking out this suit for want of jurisdiction. The Application is brought on the ground that: (a) The complaint is invalid and therefore incompetent; (b) Service on the 1st Defendant is improper and therefore defective. In support of the Motion on Notice is a 6 paragraph affidavit deposed to by one Ifeanyi Onwubiko, a litigation clerk attached to the legal unit of the 1st Defendant’s Imo State office. Also in support is a written address canvassing the applicant’s argument in support of this preliminary objection. Claimant’s counsel sought leave of court to respond by way of verbal address, which was granted. Counsel for the applicant formulated 2 issues for determination viz: (a) Whether by the provisions of CAMA and relevant judicial authorities, service on the Owerri Branch Office of a Statutory body such as the 1st defendant is proper service on the 1st Defendant. (b) Whether the Complaint as filed, bearing no endorsement that it is to be served outside the judicial division of this court is valid. On the 1st issue, Counsel’s case is that Section 78 of the Companies and Allied Matters Act (CAMA) provides that “A court process shall be served on a company in the manner provided by the rules of court and any other document may be served on a company by leaving it at or sending by post to the registered office or head office of the company.” Counsel submitted that service of the complaint ought to have been made on the head office of the 1st Defendant; therefore service on the Owerri Office of INEC was improper service. She relied on the case of NEPA vs. Uruakpa (2010) 12 NWLR pt 1208 pg 298, and Kraus Thompson Org. Ltd. Vs Unical (2004) 9 NWLR pt 879 pg 631 and argued that it is bad and ineffective to serve the document at any branch office. Counsel further relied on Order 7 Rule 6 of the National Industrial Court Rules 2007, Section 78 of CAMA and Section 95 of the Sheriff’s and Civil Process Act, and urged the court to hold that the service of the complaint at the Owerri Branch instead of the INEC Head Quarters at Abuja, was improper and ineffective. On the 2nd issue, counsel argued that there ought to have been an endorsement on the complaint, indicating that it is to be served outside jurisdiction, she relied on the provisions of Section 97 of the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act and submitted that in the absence of such an endorsement, the complaint is fundamentally effective and therefore affects the competence of this court, and renders the complaint invalid. She therefore urged the court to strike out the suit. She cited the case of UBA PLC vs. Ademola (2009) 8 NWLR pt. 1142, pg. 113 and DENR Ltd vs. Trans International Bank Ltd. (2008) 18 NWLR pt. 1119, pg. 399. Responding, the Claimant’s counsel raised 2 issues: 1. The 1st Defendant has not filed a Memorandum of Appearance in compliance with Order 8 Rule 2 of the National Industrial Court Rules 2007. 2. The 1st Defendant has admitted that they have a branch office in Owerri. Therefore the Order 7 Rule 6 which the 1st Defendant relied on has been complied with. As regards service outside jurisdiction, Order 2 Rule 1 of the National Industrial Court Rule has been complied with, therefore service on the Owerri Branch amounts to proper service. Counsel urged the court to dismiss the application especially as the applicants have not given the particulars of incompetence. Reacting on points of law, 1st Defendant/Applicant’s counsel submitted on the issue of non-entry of appearance that such an appearance could have amounted to a waiver of their right; and that since they were seriously contesting the jurisdiction of the court, they were not bound to enter an appearance. She submitted further that Order 7 Rule 6 of the rules is made subject to any other provision regulating service. I have considered the arguments and authorities cited by counsel on both sides: As regards service in accordance with Section 78 of the Companies and Allied Matters Act, “a court process may be served on a company in the manner prescribed by the rules of court and any other document 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”. Looking at this provision, it is specifically clarified that service of court processes are to be made in accordance with the rules of court. In this instance, the rules of court applicable are the National Industrial Court Rules 2007. In the case of Mobil Producing Nigeria Unlimited vs Otoabasi Effiong (2011) LPELR – 9055. The Court of Appeal held as follows:- “The general view that has been consistently expressed by this court in matters of service of processes on company is that CAMA 1990 has made provision that eliminated the rigorous and cumbersome procedure for service under the 1968 Companies Act by permitting service under the domestic rules of court. Thus, the various decisions have consistently been to permit service of processes at the office of the company, not being necessarily the registered office ----“ Order 7 Rule 6 of the National Industrial Court Rules provides as follows: “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, principal 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.” In line with the above authority of Mobil Producing vs. Effiong (Supra), Section 78 of the Companies and Allied Matters Act 1990 has permitted the application of the domestic rules of the relevant court as regards service of processes. I am inclined to disagree with Counsel’s submission that Order 7 Rule 6 of the National Industrial Court Rules is made subject to CAMA. Rather, my interpretation of that rule is that it is made subject to the Act setting up the body corporate being sued. In this case, it will be the Electoral Act. I have gone through the Electoral Act and found that no provision is made regarding service of court processes on the INEC, or indeed proceedings, except election petitions. The implication of this is that it is the rules of this court that would strictly apply. And that is, delivery to a director, secretary, trustee, or other senior principal 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. (Emphasis mine). The words of this provision ought to be construed in its ordinary meaning. If this is done, it is apt to presume that service of the originating process in this suit on the Owerri Office of the first defendant, amounts to proper service, and I so hold. As argued by learned counsel for the Claimants, the 1st Defendant has admitted both in its supporting affidavit and its written address that the 1st Defendant was served through its INEC office in Owerri. The cause of action complained occurred in Imo state, within the jurisdiction of this court. I therefore hold that the service is proper. Having thus held, the application of the Sheriff and Civil Process Act as contemplated by the Defence counsel would not be necessary. This is even more so, if the provisions of Section 21 (1) of the National Industrial Court Act is considered. By Section 21, “The court shall have and exercise jurisdiction throughout the Federation and for that purpose, the whole area of the Federation shall be divided by the president of the court into such number of judicial divisions as the President may from time to time, by instrument published in the Federal Gazette decide”. Given the National geographic jurisdiction of the court, the National Industrial Court generally holds that it is not contemplated under the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act 2004 for the purposes of the requirements of especially Section 97 thereof. See the case of Ikegbulam Vs Association of Senior Civil Servants of Nigeria (2011) 23 NLLR (pat 65) pg 263. I therefore hold that non-endorsement of the writ does not render it invalid, even as I re-iterate as stated earlier, that service in Owerri INEC amounts to good service. As regards the issue of non-filing of a memorandum of appearance, I refer to the authority of Ugwu and Ors. Vs. PDP and Ors (2013) LPELR-21356 where the court of Appeal held that “a Defendant who files a memorandum of appearance does not lose his right to dispute the court’s jurisdiction if any”. Also, in the case of Eti-Osa Local Govt vs. Mr. Rufus Jegede (2007) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1043) @pg. 537, the Court of Appeal held that “the party must at least enter a conditional appearance which signals his protest, and then follow up with a preliminary objection”. I hold that the Defendant ought to have filed a Memorandum of Appearance. If they did, they would have still been able to bring their preliminary objection. The Defendants are therefore ordered to file a Memorandum of Appearance in compliance with the rules of this Court, albeit out of time. On the whole, the preliminary objection of the 1st Defendant fails, and is hereby dismissed. I make no order as to costs. Ruling is entered accordingly. Hon. Justice O.Y. Anuwe Presiding Judge