Reference should be made to the relevant rules of court and ss 97 (Endorsement on writ for service outside a State), 98 (concurrent writ) and 99 (not less than 30 days time limit for answering to summons) of the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act 56, LFN, 2004 (SCPA).
Generally, the non-compliance with the issuance and service of originating processes touch on the competence of a Court to adjudicate over a matter before it. Where there is a defect in competence, the proceedings are rendered a nullity no matter how well conducted. The effect of proceedings and decisions taken based on incompetent writ of summons is that the court ought to set aside such proceedings/decisions.[1] ย
However, an originating process issued by the Federal High Court in one territorial jurisdiction (within Nigeria) is not considered to be service outside jurisdiction when served in a different territorial jurisdiction and thus will not require to be endorsed for service outside a State and or marked accordingly as a concurrent writ. This is because the Federal High Court just like theNational industrial court and the Court of Appeal is considered to be one, though with different judicial divisions only established for administrative convenience. In other words, out of jurisdiction for the purpose of service of originating process issued from the Federal High Court means โout of the Federal Republic of Nigeriaโ.[2]
[1]Madukolu v Nkemdilim (1962) 2 SCNLR 34; THE MVย (2018) LPELR-44098(CA) 17-24, paras F-C; PDP v INEC and others (2018) LPELR-44373(SC) 15-18 paras E โC.
[2] John Hingah Biem v Social Democratic Party and 2 others (unreported case) SC/341/2019 of 14 May 2019.