IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA

IN THE ABUJA JUDICIAL DIVISION

HOLDEN AT ABUJA

 

BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP: HONOURABLE JUSTICE O. Y. ANUWE

 

Dated: 26^th February 2026                                          SUIT NO: NICN/ABJ/32/2025

 

Between:             

 

Anuoluwapo Alli-Balogun                                                     -           Claimant/Respondent

 

And

 

VF Global Services Nigeria Ltd.                               -           Defendant/Applicant                                                 

Representation:

Faith Saiki with Ifeoma C. Nnamdi-Okonkwo for the Claimant

Eburuekwe B. Odira for the Defendant

 

 RULING

The defendant, a limited liability company, was served the originating processes in this suit on 7^th February 2025 at its office at Sterling Bank Plaza, 3^rd Floor, Plot 1083, Mohammadu Buhari Way, Central Business District, Abuja. On 18^th August 2025, the defendant filed a memorandum of appearance, a statement of defence and a notice of preliminary objection. In the NPO, the defendant sought an order setting aside all the originating processes served on it at any location outside its registered office/head office in Lagos. The basis for seeking this relief, as stated in the grounds and the affidavit in support of the NPO, is that that the registered office or head office address of the defendant is in Lagos State, which is also outside the Judicial Division of this Court, but the defendant was served the originating processes in Abuja and not at its registered/head office in Lagos State. Since the defendant's registered office address/head office is outside the Judicial Division of this Court, this Court lacks jurisdiction to hear this matter. It was also stated in the affidavit that the contract of employment was made in the Lagos Judicial Division of this Court where the claimant also worked for the defendant.

 

In the written address in support of the NPO, the defendant raised two points of objection. The first point is that the service of the originating processes on the defendant at its branch office in Abuja instead of at its head or registered office in Lagos is bad and ineffective service. In his submissions, learned Counsel for the defendant referred to section 104 of the Companies and Allied Matters Act 2020 and Order 7, Rule 1 (h) (i) of the Rules of this Court 2017 to argue that service of originating process on a company registered under the Company and Allied Matters Act is at the registered/head office of the company, which is where the principal place of business of the company is. Counsel concluded that the service of the originating processes at the defendant’s branch office in Abuja is wrong and not an effective service recognized in law.

 

On the second point, learned counsel for the defendant referred to Section 21 (1) of the National Industrial Court Act and Order 2 Rule 1 (1) of Rules of this Court to argue that this court lacks the geographical or territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate on this suit reason being that the office of the Defendant where the claimant initially worked is situate in Lagos, which is in the Lagos Judicial Division of this Court. Thus, this suit ought to have been instituted in the Lagos Division.

 

The claimant filed a counter affidavit and written address on 12^th November 2025 to oppose the NPO. It was averred by the claimant in the counter affidavit that the Defendant has a branch of her office in Lagos and apart from the Lagos branch, the Defendant has another branch office in Abuja, situate at Sterling Bank Plaza, 3^rd Floor, Plot No. 1083, Muhammadu Buhari Way, Central Business District, Abuja, where the Defendant was served with the originating process. The defendant’s Abuja branch office is within the jurisdiction of this Court. The claimant also said he worked at the Defendant Lagos office when he was initially employed by the Defendant but he was transferred to the Defendant’s Abuja office where he worked until his employment was terminated.

 

In the written address, counsel for the claimant submitted that by virtue of section 104 of CAMA 2020, service of Court processes on a company shall be determined by the Rules of Court and by Order 7 Rule 1 (h)(i) of the Rules of this Court, it is not mandatory to serve an originating process on the registered address of a company. The Rules permit service on a company at its main place of business within the judicial division in which the dispute first arose. It was also submitted that the Claimant has shown that she was working at the defendant’s branch office in Abuja as at the time her employment was terminated by the Defendant. It is therefore apparent that the dispute which gave rise to this suit arose in Abuja, within the jurisdiction of this Court. Thus, this Court has the jurisdiction to entertain this suit.

 

DECISION

The first contention of the defendant in the NPO is that the originating processes were not served on the defendant at its registered or head office in Lagos. For this reason, it has asked this Court to set aside the service of the originating processes. It is not in issue that defendant is a company incorporated under the Companies and Allied Matters Act. Section 104 of the Companies and Allied Matters Act 2020, which provided for the mode of service of court process on companies, state thus:

“A court process shall be served on a company in the manner provided by the Rules of Court and any other document may be served on a company by leaving it at, or sending it by post to, the registered office or head office of the company”.

 

By this provision, when a court process is to be served on a company, service is to be effected by the method and procedure provided by the Rules of the court issuing the process but when it is any other document, service is by leaving it at, or sending it by post to, the registered office or head office of the company. From the provision, service of court process on a company has a different mode of service from other documents. It is clear from the provision that it is the Rules of Court that regulate the manner of service of Court process on a company. Now, how is a court process served on a company under the Rules of this court? Order 7 Rule 1 (1) provides as follows:

“Any process or document required or authorized by these Rules or ordered by the Court to be served on any person who is a party in a matter may be served as follows:

…..           

(h) (i)-          if the person is a company or other body corporate, by serving a copy of the document or process on a senior or a responsible employee of the company or body corporate at its registered office or at its principal place of business within the Federation, or its main place of business within the Judicial Division in which the dispute first arose or, if there is no employee willing to accept service, by affixing a copy of the document or process to the main door of the office or place of business or by posting same on the wall or the fence of the residence or place of business.”

 

The manner a court process is to be served on a company is as provided in Order 7 Rule 1 [1)(h)(i) of the Rules of this Court. Service may be effected at the company’s registered office or at its principal place of business within the Federation, or its main place of business within the Division in which the dispute arose. Contrary to the assertion of the defendant, it is not the law that court processes can only be served on it at its registered or head office.

 

The defendant was served the originating processes of this suit at Sterling Bank Plaza, 3^rd Floor, Plot 1083, Mohammadu Buhari Way, Central Business District, Abuja. The defendant confirmed that this address is the address of its branch office in Abuja. That is to say, the address at which the defendant was served is its main place of business within this Division. In paragraphs 3, 5 to 19 of the statement of facts, the claimant pleaded that she was employed at the Lagos office of the defendant in April 2015 and later transferred to the Abuja office in October 2016 where she worked until January 2025 when her employment was terminated by the defendant. The dispute in this suit is the termination of the claimant’s employment and this dispute arose at the defendant’s Abuja branch office. Order 7 Rule 1 [1)(h)(i) of the Rules of this Court permit service of the originating processes on the defendant at its place of business within the Division in which the dispute arose. Without a doubt, the defendant was properly served the originating processes at its Abuja branch office.

 

Let me add that the whole purpose of service of court process is to bring the process to the attention of the other party. There is evidence in this matter that the defendant, by the service made at its branch office, became aware of the suit. It was on that basis it filed memorandum of appearance, statement of defence and this NPO. The fact that the defendant is now aware of the suit vide the service at its branch office in Abuja, removes all iota of merit from this leg of the NPO.

 

It is also the contention of the defendant that this Division of the NICN lacks the geographical or territorial jurisdiction to entertain this suit. It was contended that since the office of the Defendant, where the claimant initially worked, is situate within the Lagos Division of this Court, this suit ought to have been instituted in the Lagos Division.

 

Order 2 Rule 1[1] of the Rules of this court provide as follows:

            “Subject to the provisions of the Act on transfer of suits, an originating process in respect of a matter in which the Court has jurisdiction shall be filed in any Registry of the Court nearest to where the defendant or respondent resides or has presence or in which the defendant or respondent carries on business.

                    Provided that where economic, security, environmental or other exigencies warrant, an originating process may be filed in the Court’s Registry in a Judicial Division other than that closest to the place of residence or business of the defendant(s) or respondent(s).”

 

The above Rule permits the claimant to institute a suit against the defendant in the Court nearest to where the defendant resides or has presence or in which the defendant carries on business. It is not in dispute in this application that the defendant carries on business in Abuja at its branch office in Abuja. It is also clear to me that the dispute in this suit arose in Abuja. This Division of the NICN therefore has jurisdiction to entertain this suit. Accordingly, the defendant’s prayer to have this suit struck out because it was filed in this Division is without merit.

 

The result of the foregoing is that the defendant’s NPO lacks merit. It is dismissed accordingly.

 

Cost of N100,000.00 is awarded in favour of the Claimant.

 

Ruling is entered accordingly.

 

 

Hon. Justice O. Y. Anuwe

Judge