, 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.