Whether substituted service can be effected on companies

  • 📰 GuardianNigeria
  • ⏱ Reading Time:
  • 44 sec. here
  • 2 min. at publisher
  • 📊 Quality Score:
  • News: 21%
  • Publisher: 94%

Ireland News News

Ireland Ireland Latest News,Ireland Ireland Headlines

The 1st respondent alleged that it entered into a contract with the appellant to transfer money, which was however not transferred

, as the latter claimed that it would violate Central Bank Regulations. The 1st respondent then paid the cheque to other respondents.

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that ORDER 10 OF THE HIGH COURT RULES, 2008 OF CROSS RIVER STATE is applicable only in respect of “Recovery of a debt or liquidated money demand.” That the 3rd respondent was served the originating process at 139 Ndidem Usang Iso Road, Calabar when that is not his address. He argued that it means the 3rd respondent was not served with the originating process in this case.

The Court explained that by virtue of the facts that service was effected on the appellant, 2nd and 3rd respondents on May 27, 2014, and that judgment was entered on June 5, 2014, the appellant, the 2nd and 3rd respondents were still within time to file a defence going by ORDER 10 RULE 6. That the trial Court erred when it shut out the appellant, the 2nd and 3rd respondents in spite of the fact that they were still within time to defend.

 

Thank you for your comment. Your comment will be published after being reviewed.
Please try again later.
We have summarized this news so that you can read it quickly. If you are interested in the news, you can read the full text here. Read more:

 /  🏆 1. in İE

Ireland Ireland Latest News, Ireland Ireland Headlines