Service Outside Jurisdiction

I agree with learned counsel for the respondents that the issue of service of a writ of summons in admiralty proceedings is crucial to this appeal as no Court can enter default judgment against anyone without proof of service of the originating processes. That is the crux of the matter in this appeal.

Any application to serve the writ outside jurisdiction must be made under Section 97 of the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act. See: Broad Bank of Nigeria Ltd v. Alhaji S. Olayiwola & Sons Ltd & Anor (2005) 3 NWLR (Pt. 912) 434; Nwabueze v. Okoye (1988) 4 NWLR (Pt. 91) 664; Fumudoh v. Aboro (1991) 9 NWLR (pt. 214) 210; Erokoro v. Government of Cross River State (1991) 4 NWLR (pt. 185) 322; University of Ife v. Fawehinmi Contruction Co. Ltd (1991) 7 NWLR (Pt. 201) 26; Achineku v. Ishaga (1988) 4 NWLR (pt.89) 411.

Perhaps a more important factor which is against the 1st Respondent in this case is that by its own processes the 1st Appellant ordinarily resides in Igbeti, Oyo State outside the jurisdiction of the Court.
The revelation in the Statement of Claim and other processes of the 1st Respondent that the Appellant resides in Igbeti, Oyo State outside the jurisdiction of trial Court marks out this case as peculiar and counter the argument of the 1st Respondent that the Appellants were to be served in Ilorin within the jurisdiction of the Court.
In OGUNSOLA VS. A.P.P. (2004) ALL FWLR (Pt.207) 727 AT 729, the stressed the importance of the requirement to seek leave of Court to issue and serve Court process on defendant outside jurisdiction as follows:
Because physical presence of a defendant is usually required to assume jurisdiction over a person, civil rules of procedure often require that a plaintiff issuing a Writ, originating process or petition to be served on a defendant or other party who does not have a physical, residence or business presence within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court require leave of that Court before the Writ or other process can validly issue. By this process the Court is able to satisfy itself before granting the leave that the circumstances warranting the issue of such Writ or other process are not such as to be vexatious or oppressive to the defendant or other party.
See also MOBIL NIG PLC VS. PAM (2000) 1 NWLR (Pt. 657) 506,
Furthermore, in the case of D.E.N.R. LTD VS. TRANS INTERNATIONAL BANK LTD. (2009) ALL FWLR (Pt. 456) 1823 AT 1826, 1850, 1851, the Supreme Court held that it is mandatory to obtain leave of Court for issuance and service of Writ of Summons and other processes on a defendant who is resident outside Court's jurisdiction. The Court stated thus:
Where the address of a defendant is outside the jurisdiction of the trial Court's jurisdiction, it is a condition precedent for the exercise of Court's jurisdiction over him that a valid Writ of Summons must be issued and served on him. The issuance of such Writ and its service on the defendant can only be valid where the leave of the High Court was sought and obtained for the issuance of the said Writ of Summons and for its service on the defendant. In the instance case, the Plaintiffs failed to obtain leave of Court to issue and serve the Writ of Summons outside the jurisdiction of the Court, the Writ was therefore invalid and the trial Court erred by not declaring it so.
See also: N.E.P.A. VS. OBAYANGBONA (1997) 1 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 484) 680, INTRA MOTORS (NIG) PLC. VS. AKINLOYE (2001) 6 N.W.L.R. (PT. 708) 61.