Introduction
For many years, the application of sections 97, 98, and 99 of the Sheriff and Civil Process Act ("SCPA") - specifically concerning the service of writs outside the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court - has been mired in conflicting judicial interpretations. In 2008, the apex Court in Owners of the MV "Arabella" v. Nigeria Agricultural Insurance Corporation1 held that section 97 of the SCPA applied to all High Courts, including the Federal High Court ("FHC"). That position was followed in several subsequent decisions, including Izeze v. INEC2 , on the basis of stare decisis.
However, in 2019, the Supreme Court appeared to shift its stance in Biem v. S.D.P3 , holding that, by virtue of section 19 of the Federal High Court Act and Order 6 Rule 31 of the Federal High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 2009 (as amended in 2019) ("FHC Rules"), the SCPA is not the principal legislation governing the service of court processes before the FHC. The Court further clarified that the SCPA applies only where service is to be effected outside the territory of Nigeria.
This article examines the recent Supreme Court decision in Geepee Industries Nigeria Ltd et al. v. MV Kota Manis et al. (2025) LPELR-81075(SC) (the "Considered Case"), which once again brought this contentious issue to the fore - this time focusing on the proper legal regime governing the service of originating processes in admiralty matters initiated in rem before the FHC. We align with the Supreme Court's conclusion that the Admiralty Jurisdiction Act, 1991 ("AJA") and the Admiralty Jurisdiction Procedure Rules, 2011 (as amended in 2023) ("AJPR") are the exclusive authorities regulating such service. Our position is grounded particularly on the recent and clarifying provisions of Order 6 Rule 1(2) of the AJPR 2023, which resolves previous ambiguities surrounding this issue.
Facts of the Case
The Appellants, Geepee Industries Nigeria Limited and Staco Industries Nigeria Limited instituted an action at the FHC, Lagos Division by a writ of summons dated April 3, 2013. They sought, inter alia, liquidated damages of ₦94,045,146.97 against the Respondents, jointly and severally, for losses allegedly sustained by the 1st Appellant as a result of a fire incident aboard the 1 st Respondent vessel.
At trial, the Respondents challenged the jurisdiction of the FHC on the grounds that the writ of summons served on the 3 rd Respondent (the Owners of the MV "Kota Manis") was void. They argued that the Appellants had failed to seek and obtain leave of court to issue and serve the writ outside jurisdiction and had also failed to mark the writ as 'concurrent' and endorse it for service outside Nigeria. The trial court dismissed the objection and struck out the Respondents' application. On appeal, however, the Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's ruling and struck out the Appellants' writ.
Dissatisfied, the Appellants appealed to the Supreme Court. The sole issue for determination was whether the writ of summons was issued and served in accordance with the applicable law.
Arguments of Counsel
Counsel for the Appellants argued that the issuance and service of the writ complied with the AJA and the AJPR. He contended that the SCPA does not apply to in rem actions, as such processes are usually served within jurisdiction - specifically, on the vessel. He submitted that being an admiralty in rem action, service on the 1 st Respondent vessel within jurisdiction is sufficient service on the 3 rd Respondent owners (designated on the face of the writ as "THE OWNER(S) OF THE MV KOTA MANIS"), and that leave of court was not required.
He further argued that where both general and specific legislations exist on the same subject matter, the specific provisions prevail. Accordingly, the AJA and AJPR, being specific to admiralty matters, override the general provisions of the FHC Rules and the SCPA.
In response, Counsel for the Respondents maintained that both the SCPA and the FHC Rules apply to the FHC and that their mandatory requirements regarding service outside jurisdiction must be complied with. He argued that failure to comply with these statutory conditions before effecting service of the writ on the 3rd Respondent who were ordinarily resident outside the jurisdiction of the FHC rendered the writ void and deprived the FHC of jurisdiction. Relying on Owners of the MV "Arabella" and other cases, he contended that the writ should have been marked 'concurrent', endorsed for service outside jurisdiction, and preceded by leave of court. He urged the Court to affirm that both the SCPA and the FHC Rules apply even in admiralty matters before the FHC.
Decision of the Supreme Court
In a unanimous decision delivered by Adah, J.S.C., the Supreme Court allowed the appeal. The Court reaffirmed the sui generis nature of admiralty law, which is governed by its own distinct procedural regime. It held that the AJA and the AJPR are specialised legislations that exclusively govern admiralty proceedings in the FHC.
The Court criticised past judicial decisions for applying the FHC Rules and the SCPA to admiralty claims and held that the Court of Appeal, in the Considered Case, had erred in relying on those provisions. It clarified that Order 3 of the AJPR governs the form and commencement of admiralty actions and should have been applied instead.
Relying on recent decisions, including Samuel v. APC4 and PDP v. Uche et al.5 , the Court held that the SCPA is inapplicable to admiralty claims before the FHC. It concluded that the misapplication of the FHC Rules by the Court of Appeal resulted in a miscarriage of justice. The action, having been properly commenced under section 7 of the AJA and Order 6 of the AJPR, was valid. The sole issue was resolved in the Appellants' favour, the appeal allowed, the Court of Appeal's judgment set aside, and costs of ₦20,000,000 awarded against the Respondents.
Our Analysis
We agree with the reasoning of the Supreme Court. As correctly held, admiralty matters are sui generis - they constitute a distinct legal domain governed by specialised rules and procedures. These are codified in the AJA and AJPR, which provide comprehensive legal frameworks for admiralty proceedings before the FHC.
The FHC's jurisdiction includes several specialised subject matters enumerated in the Exclusive Legislative List of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended), including admiralty. These matters often require specialised procedural regimes that differ from the general civil procedure rules. For instance, the Companies Winding Up Rules 2001 govern insolvency proceedings, just as the AJPR governs admiralty procedure. Notably, Rule 183 of the Companies Winding Up Rules and Order 21 Rule 9 of the AJPR both provide that the FHC Rules apply only where the specialised rules are silent.
We now analyse our position under two subheadings:
We now analyse our position under two subheadings:
The Supreme Court, in the Considered Case, affirmed that section 97 of the SCPA does not apply to admiralty actions - or indeed to the FHC itself. Sections 97-99 of the SCPA govern inter-state service by State High Courts and are not relevant to the FHC, which exercises a single nationwide jurisdiction pursuant to section 19 of the Federal High Court Act. Judicial Divisions of the FHC exist for administrative convenience only. To require SCPA compliance for service between FHC Divisions would be as illogical as requiring service of writ issued at Ikeja Division of the High Court of Lagos State to comply with the SCPA when being effected on a party in the Badagry Division.
The FHC is one and "out of jurisdiction" means outside Nigeria6 . The Supreme Court's reasoning in Biem v. S.D.P. (supra) aligns with this position, even though that decision was not explicitly cited in the Considered Case. The Supreme Court's reaffirmation of this point eliminates any residual doubt.
(B) The SCPA and FHC Rules Are Inapplicable to Admiralty Actions Before the FHC
Even where a defendant in an in rem action is resident outside Nigeria, the SCPA does not apply to admiralty actions in rem. Rather, the AJA and AJPR - both tailored to the complexities of admiralty litigation - govern such proceedings. These laws are rooted in international maritime conventions, as well as maritime customs and practices, making them more suitable for the technical nature of maritime claims.
It is well settled that specific legislation overrides general legislation in cases of conflict. Accordingly, the AJA and AJPR prevail over the SCPA and FHC Rules. Interestingly, the AJPR 2023 has further clarified the ambiguity with the introduction of Order 6 Rule 1(2), which provides that in in rem actions, service effected by securely affixing the writ to a conspicuous part of the ship or by delivering it to the ship's master constitutes valid service on the ship's owners. This innovation addresses prior uncertainties exploited by parties, such as the Respondents in the Considered Case, seeking to invalidate service in in rem actions.
Thus, service on the vessel within jurisdiction suffices and displaces any need to serve the owners abroad under the SCPA. The rule confirms that the SCPA has no application to purely admiralty in rem proceedings.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court's decision in the Considered Case provides much-needed clarity and doctrinal coherence in admiralty litigation. It confirms the primacy of the AJA and AJPR over general procedural statutes like the SCPA and FHC Rules in matters falling within the FHC's admiralty jurisdiction. The AJPR 2023 has also eliminated any residual doubt by expressly codifying acceptable service mechanisms in in rem actions, thereby aligning domestic maritime procedure with international standards.
Footnotes
1 (2008) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1097) 182.
2 (2018) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1629) 110 at 132.
3 (2019) 12 NWLR (Pt.1687) 377.
4 (2023) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1892) 195.
5 (2023) LPELR-59604(SC).
6 Order 6 Rule 21, FHC Rules.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
