Inter-state service of process in the Nigeria Federation and the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act

Abstract

Chapter VII of the Nigeria Sheriffs and Civil Process Act is modelled along the Australian Service of Process Act and provides for service of claim forms obtained from one state on a defendant in another state, subject to certain prescribed endorsements on the claim form, in the same way as if the service were done in the state of issue of the claim form. This and other provisions of the Act ought to warrant the treatment of service in another constituent state of the Nigerian federation of originating court process differently from service outside the country. Unfortunately the policy thrust of the chapter has not been honoured by the courts, who have treated a sister state as the English courts would treat another country: by imposing the condition that leave of court should be obtained. The courts have also failed to appreciate that the chapter generally recognises the writ rule and vests personal jurisdiction over a defendant on the court of issue of the claim form, while providing grounds for defendants to protest jurisdiction. This latter attitude is a result of the general lack of appreciation of the difference between choice of jurisdiction and choice of law in the conflict of laws, resulting in the wrong application of local venue rules and in rejecting jurisdiction conferred at private international law on the ground of territorial limit of jurisdiction to causes having foreign or inter-state connection. On the other hand, the courts have wrongly applied the provision of the chapter to claim forms obtained from the Federal High Court whose jurisdiction already extends to the whole country. This article critically examines the state of the case law on these as well as the effect of non-compliance with the requisite endorsements and also identifies that where defendants are sued in their state of residence, the court can neither on the excuse of the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act nor on the excuse of the rule of private international law, decline jurisdiction on the ground that the facts occurred elsewhere.