Personal Service

In Odutola v Kayode (1994) 2 NWLR (Pt. 324) 1 at 19- 20 paras G – A, this Court had this to say: Since the lower Court ordered a personal service on the defendant, any other service not in accordance with the order of Court was not a proper service. This case has brought out clearly the statutory and honest duties required of a bailiff: to serve in accordance with the order of Court. Where a personal service is ordered, he must serve that person personally. Where a substituted service whether by pasting at the last known abode of the person required to be served, or by a publication in a newspaper is ordered, any other service which is not in accordance with the clear and unambiguous language of the Court is ineffectual.
Further at page 21 para F of Odutola v. Kayode (supra), this Court continued:
"To effect personal service of Court process on a party, the bailiff or any officer of Court entrusted with the task should satisfy himself that he has found the right man. It is not enough to leave a Court process with person who works with the same office with the defendant, as was done in this case, even if the latter undertakes to convey it to the appellants.
A similar presentation had erupted in the case of Ihedioha v Okorocha (2016) 1 NWLR (Pt. 1492) 147 at 176 D – H
"The order for substituted service which the trial Court made is tied to the address for service which the appellant supplied and the specific person (i. e. the 1st respondent) named in that order. Neither the bailiff nor any person at all was competent to alter the text and subject of the order without a prior leave of the Court. See Odutola v Kayode (1994) 2 NWLR (pt. 334) 1 at 15 for persuasion to the effect that the Court is bound by its own orders. In Kida v Ogunmola (supra) at 399 A H the Supreme Court relied on the decision of the Queen Bench Division of the Court of England Fry v Moore (1889) 23 QBD. 395 and decided that there cannot be substituted service of a suit which could not at the time when it was issued be served personally..... With all the respect the Supreme Court never decided in Egolum v Obasanjo (1999) 7 NWLR (Pt. 511) 255 or 413 that defect in service of originating process is a mere matter of technicality. Instead the Supreme Court decided in Kida vs Ogunmola (supra) that defect in service affects the jurisdiction of the Court.