REV. PROF. PAUL EMEKA V. REV. DR. CHIDI OKOROAFOR & ORS. (2017)

Background

Rev. Prof. Paul Emeka was elected General Superintendent of the Assemblies of God Church, Nigeria, in November 2010 for a four-year term. During his tenure, allegations were made that he had breached the church’s constitution and bye-laws. Members of the church, including several of the respondents, submitted petitions alleging misconduct and corruption. The appellant responded to the first petition and asserted that he subsequently received a vote of confidence from pastors and members.

A further petition was later made. The appellant, who was also chairman of the church’s Executive Committee, attempted to convene a meeting of that body. The respondents instead convened a special meeting of the General Committee on 6 March 2014. Although the appellant was invited, he declined to attend, contending that the meeting had not been properly convened or constituted. The meeting proceeded, and the appellant’s appointment as General Superintendent was terminated. He was also suspended from membership of the church.

Another action, Suit No. E/82/2014, had already been filed in the Enugu State High Court concerning the church dispute. The appellant was not a party to that suit, although an order was made directing the parties to return to the status quo ante. Alleging that the respondents continued to act against him despite that order, the appellant commenced Suit No. E/202M/2014 under the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules, 2009. He sought declarations, injunctions and substantial damages, alleging breaches of fair hearing, freedom of religion, freedom of association, freedom from discrimination and access to court.

The High Court granted interim reliefs and accepted the service of the originating processes. The respondents challenged the service and the competence of the action. The High Court rejected their objections and granted the appellant’s reliefs, awarding costs. The Court of Appeal reversed that decision, set aside the service and ex parte orders, and struck out the suit. The appellant appealed to the Supreme Court.

Issues

1. Whether service of the originating processes complied with the High Court’s order for substituted service.
2. Whether the appellant’s claims were competent under section 46 of the 1999 Constitution and the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal. It held that service of an originating process is a fundamental condition precedent to the exercise of jurisdiction. Where a court orders substituted service in a specified manner, at a specified place and through a specified person, that order must be obeyed strictly. The bailiff had been directed to serve the first respondent at Evangel House, Plot R8, Ozubulu Street, Independence Layout, Enugu, and to serve the other respondents through him. Instead, the processes were allegedly delivered to a security worker at the first respondent’s residence at No. 5 Mbanano Street.

The Court rejected the argument that actual notice or appearance in court cured the defect. The respondents appeared under protest and promptly applied to set aside the service. Their conduct therefore did not amount to submission to jurisdiction or waiver. The Court further held that the bailiff’s affidavits contained material contradictions concerning how he located and served the security worker. Since the affidavit evidence was conflicting, the trial judge was not entitled simply to choose the bailiff’s version without resolving the conflict by oral evidence.

The Court also held that the Fundamental Rights Enforcement Procedure was inappropriate. The principal reliefs concerned the appellant’s dismissal as General Superintendent and suspension as a church member. The right to occupy a particular office in a private religious organisation, or to remain a minister or member of that church, is not itself a fundamental right guaranteed under Chapter IV of the Constitution. The allegations of fair hearing, freedom of association and freedom of religion were secondary or ancillary to the central dispute.

Court Findings

The Court distinguished between constitutional fair hearing and the broader rules of natural justice. Administrative and domestic bodies may be required to act fairly, but a complaint that a private church committee breached natural justice does not automatically constitute a violation of section 36(1) of the Constitution. That constitutional provision concerns proceedings before a court or tribunal established by law. The church’s General Committee was a domestic body created under the church’s constitution, not a court or statutory tribunal.

The Court explained that the jurisdiction of a court is determined by the claimant’s reliefs. Applying Madukolu v. Nkemdilim, a court is competent only where it is properly constituted, the subject matter falls within its jurisdiction, and the action is initiated by due process with all conditions precedent fulfilled. In this case, both the defective service and the improper procedure undermined the competence of the trial court.

The Court further observed that an affidavit of service ordinarily constitutes prima facie evidence of service and may attract a presumption of regularity under section 168(1) of the Evidence Act, 2011. However, that presumption is rebuttable. The respondents supplied specific facts denying service at the ordered location, and the bailiff’s inconsistent affidavits substantially discredited the alleged service. A false or irregular return by a bailiff cannot establish valid service.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision, upheld the judgment of the Court of Appeal. The appeal was dismissed, the originating process and ex parte orders were set aside, and Suit No. E/202M/2014 was struck out as incompetent. No order was made as to costs.

Significance

The decision reinforces the strict and jurisdictional importance of service of originating processes in Nigerian civil procedure. It confirms that a bailiff has no discretion to alter a clear order for substituted service and that actual knowledge cannot ordinarily replace legally compliant service where the defendant objects at the earliest opportunity. The judgment also restates the principal-versus-accessory-claim doctrine in fundamental-rights litigation: where the real dispute concerns dismissal, expulsion, appointment or status, allegations of constitutional violations arising during that dispute may be incidental and must be pursued through an appropriate ordinary civil action or judicial-review procedure, rather than by disguising the substantive dispute as a fundamental-rights claim.