A Court can only exercise jurisdiction in respect of any matter when the case comes before it by due process of law and upon fulfillment of any condition precedent to the exercise of jurisdiction.[1]Notice to a defendant of a case filed against him/her is mandatory under the Rules of Court, which provide for service of processes like writ of summons, notices, petitions, pleadings etc. Where there is a failure to give such notice and a judgment in default (or on merit) is entered against the defendant, the proceedings although ostensibly valid shall be ex debito justitiae be set aside because of the fundamental vice or irregularity which goes to the competence of the Court.[2] The trial Court is competent to set aside its judgment given in such circumstances or even the judgment of a Court of co-ordinate jurisdiction. [3]
[1]Integrated Builders v Domzaq Ventures (Nig) Ltd (2004) LPELR-5742(CA) 25-28, paras D.
[2]Anatogu v Iwekaย II (1995) 9 SCNJ 1 at 33-34 or (1995) 8 NWLR (Pt 415) at 547 at 586.
[3]SGBN v Adewunmi (2003) 10 NWLR (Pt 829) 526, Obimonure v. Erinosho (1966) 1 All NLR 250, Mbadinuju v. Ezuka (1994) 8 NWLR (Pt 364) 535; Kalu Mark v Eke (2004) 5 NWLR (Pt 865) 54 76-77 paras H-D; OlabanjiI v Odofin (1996) 2 SCNJ 242 at 247; (1996) 3 NWLR (Pt 435) 126.