While the law is settled on the issue of service of Court processes on defendant who is a natural person, same cannot be said of the position of the law regarding service of court processes on an artificial juristic person (company) especially looking at Section 78 of CAMA and the decision in MARK v. EKE (2004).
In reaction to this issue, Kunle Edun Esq, the National Publicity Secretary, NBA commented thus:
“This decision needs to be reviewed. I do not see anything wrong if a company’s Director is served in Abuja at the Airport whereas the company’s head office is in Lagos State.
It also makes no sense when the cause of action occurs in Warri where the company’s branch is fully operational, for service to be effected in the company’s head office in Lagos. The company does business and make profit from it’s operations in Warri but it cannot accept the associated liabilities by way of service of process. The essence of service is to ensure that the process gets to the company, howsoever.
We need a new thinking and do not need to be bogged down by undue technicalities.”
The importance of certainty in the position of the law cannot be overemphasized. Attraction of both foreign and national investments and well as confidence in the administration of justice are two crucial points.
We are delighted to have your views on this salient matter.
Toheeb Adeagbo,
Initiator, Litigaship,
Associate, Law Axis 360°
Litigaship is a unique initiative of the Dispute Resolution Department of Law Axis 360°.
Law Axis 360° 
Nice and educative, keep it up sir
LikeLiked by 1 person
This is a very awesome point of research. I agree with Mr Edun on making it obsolete.
LikeLiked by 1 person