It is not good service to leave a process on the floor of a registered address, without leaving it in the custody of someone to hand over to the company

BD LAW DIGEST WITH CLRN & ALP NG & Co.

ROFICO LIMITED v. STUDIO PRESS (NIGERIA) PLC

COURT OF APPEAL OF NIGERIA
(LAGOS DIVISION)

(IKYEGH; TOBI; GAFAI, JJ.CA)

BACKGROUND FACTS

This appeal is against the decision of the High Court of Lagos, Ikeja Division (lower court) in Suit No: ID/ADR/55/2014 – Studio Press (Nigeria) ltd v. Rofico Limited wherein the lower court dismissed the application of Rofico Limited (the Appellant), seeking for an order to stay the execution of default judgment, obtained by Studio Press (Nigeria) Plc (the Respondent), and for an order setting aside the default judgment.

The fact of this case is that the Respondent claimed against the Appellant for the sum of ₦12,291,278.09 (Twelve Million, Two Hundred and Ninety-One Thousand, Two Hundred and Seventy-Eight Naira, Nine Kobo). The Appellant did not enter appearance or file any process at the lower court to challenge the suit. Therefore, judgment was entered in favour of the Respondent in default of appearance. The Appellant on becoming aware of the judgment filed a motion on seeking for stay of execution of the default judgment and to further set aside the judgment. The main reason or ground for the motion was that the processes leading to the judgment was not served on any of its (the Appellant) officers. The lower court in a considered ruling dismissed the application in these words:

“… Since the judgment here has been sought to be set aside on ground of lack of service which has failed, I have no choice than to dismiss the application of the Defendant. Same is hereby dismissed with ₦10,000 Cost in favour of the Claimant.”

Dissatisfied with the decision of the lower court, the Appellant appealed to the Cour of Appeal. One of the issues distilled for determination in the appeal was: Whether the decision of the Lower Court upholding the alleged service of Court process on the Appellant by dropping same at the office of the Appellant is correct and sustainable in Law

ARGUMENTS

In arguing this issue, the learned counsel for the Appellant submitted the general position of the law as it relates to service of process on corporate bodies as stated in Section 78 of the Companies and Allied Matters Act (CAMA), 2004 (now Section 104 of the CAMA 2020), Order 7 Rule 9 of the Lagos State High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2012 and referring to some decided cases argued that the bailiff who went to serve the Appellant did not comply with the law. Learned counsel further submitted that the law prescribes that one of the ways of serving a corporate body is by leaving the process at the registered office of the company. Since by the evidence of the bailiff, the PW1, dropped the processes on the floor of the compound and that would not amount to proper service in law. Learned Counsel urged this court to resolve this issue in favour of the Appellant.

In response to the Appellant’s argument, the learned counsel for the Respondent agreed with the submission of Appellant’s counsel on how to serve corporate bodies and went on to submit that the onus is on the person who served the processes, that is the bailiff, to prove service. Learned counsel submitted further that there is no difference between leaving or dropping a process of court under the law. The Court’s attention was further drawn to the meaning of both words in the Black’s Law Dictionary. It was thus submitted that the Appellant was aware of the pendency of the suit but deliberately stayed away and therefore, his appeal would fail. The Respondent’s learned Counsel in this wise urged this court to resolve this issue in favour of the Respondent.

DECISION OF THE COURT

In resolving this issue, the Court of Appeal held that:

It is not good service without further order of court to effect service on a corporation outside the means stated in the law. The purpose of leaving the process at the registered office is such that the Appellant will eventually come to know about it. To leave a process implies that the process is in the hand of a person who could inform the person to whom the process is addressed about the existence of the process against him. It is not possible and does not make any grammatical sense and indeed moral or legal sense to leave a process for someone on the floor without leaving it in the custody of someone to hand over to him. What the PW1 has done which the lower court endorsed was to drop the process of the court on the ground even after been informed that the Appellant no longer operates from there and indeed had abandoned that premises for about 4 to 5 years. The PW1 did not go further to find out whether the security man he saw in the premises is a staff of the Appellant. It is clear from the response the security man he saw in the premises told him that the Appellant had abandoned the premises that there is no likelihood of the company knowing about the case against it. How then does the PW1 think the Appellant will have knowledge of the action against him? When something is left for another, it is left at the custody of someone. It is wrong use of language to say that you leave a property for someone without anyone watching over it… the law does not anticipate service of a court process on a corporate body by dropping same on the floor. This will not amount to good or proper service since such a document was not left in the custody of any person to hand over to the person the process is meant for.

Issue resolved in favour of the Appellant.

Mr. T. Idenyi with O. Okoyeocha Esq., for the Appellant
Mr. S. Ololade with T. Oyerinde Esq., for the Respondent

This summary is fully reported at (2024) 2 CLRN in association with ALP NG & Co.

See www.clrndirect.com; www.alp.company