site logo

ADEJUMO V. MOHAM PEDRO LTD & M.O. MUDKAS ENTERPRISES NIGERIA (2016)

case summary

Court of Appeal (Lagos Division)

Before Their Lordships:

  • Sidi Dauda Bage JCA
  • Joseph Shagbaor Ikyegh JCA
  • A. O. Obaseki-Adejumo JCA

Parties:

Appellant:

  • Mrs. Adejumo

Respondents:

  • Moham Pedro Limited
  • M. O. Mudkas Enterprises Nigeria Limited
Suit number: CA/L/1019/2011

Background

This case arose from a ruling made by the High Court of Lagos State, where the respondents initiated a suit seeking a declaration of entitlement to a statutory right of occupancy over a disputed plot of land in Ogombo town, Eti-Osa Local Government Area. The respondents sought N5,000,000 in general damages for trespass and a perpetual injunction against Mrs. Adejumo, the appellant. The appellant contested the jurisdiction of the lower court arguing that she was not properly served with the originating processes.

Issues

The main legal issues considered in this appeal were:

  1. Whether the trial judge erred in ruling on the proper service of the originating processes without addressing contradictions in the affidavits regarding service.
  2. Whether the service of motion on notice sufficed to confer jurisdiction.
  3. Whether the preconditions for exercising jurisdiction were met.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that affidavits of service, while serving as prima facie proof of service, are not conclusive. If challenged, especially in cases with contradictions, the court is mandated to take oral evidence to resolve these discrepancies.

Court Findings

Upon reviewing the affidavits presented by both sides, the Court found significant discrepancies pertaining to the service. The appellant's counter-affidavit asserted that she had not received the originating processes, contrasting sharply with the sheriff’s affidavit claiming proper service. The court emphasized that the failure to establish proper service undermines jurisdiction, aligning with the principles laid out in Mark v. Eke.

Conclusion

The appeal was upheld, with the Court finding merit in the appellant's argument regarding the lack of proper service. The ruling of the lower court was set aside, and the case was remitted for re-hearing by a different judge from the trial court.

Significance

This ruling underscores the fundamental importance of proper service of court documents. It establishes that even if a party admits service of other motions, it does not substitute for the required service of the originating processes. Ultimately, this decision contributes to the evolving interpretations of court jurisdiction and the critical nature of due process in legal proceedings.