Court permits int’l service in high-stakes mgt buyout case

Justice Akintayo Aluko of a Federal High Court in Lagos, yesterday, granted leave to Growthprenure, Azeez Amida, to serve court processes on three foreign entities involved in a disputed management buyout (MBO) transaction.

The ruling followed an ex-parte application by Amida’s counsel, Prof. Kemi Pinheiro, SAN, seeking the court’s permission to issue and serve the originating processes and other legal documents on the 3rd to 5th defendants, Development Partners International LLP, African Development Partners III LP, and Pat Holding Limited, all of which are located outside Nigeria.

According to the application, the defendants are based at the following foreign addresses: 2nd Floor, Jubilee House, 2 Jubilee Place, London, SW3 3TQ, UK 4th Floor, Plaza House, Admiral Park, St. Peter Port, Guernsey, GY1 4BF 1 Bartholomew Lane, London, EC2N 2AX, UK.

Amida also sought leave to serve the processes via airmail or internationally recognised courier services, which he argued would amount to proper and lawful service under Nigerian law.

At the hearing, Bolu Akadri moved the ex-parte motion and urged the court to grant leave to issue and serve the originating processes outside jurisdiction.

In a bench ruling, Justice Aluko held that he was satisfied with the propriety of the application and accordingly granted the reliefs sought in full.

The court ruled that the defendants must enter an appearance within 45 days of being served and that the originating processes must be properly endorsed for service outside jurisdiction, in accordance with Order 6 Rule 15.

In an affidavit supporting the motion, Amida stated that the dispute stems from a Management Buyout Transaction (MBT) negotiated with the 1st to 4th defendants, Verod Capital Management Limited, Verod Capital Growth Fund III LP, Development Partners International LLP, and African Development Partners III LP.

He maintained that he has a strong cause of action and that the foreign defendants are necessary parties to the suit.

He further argued that because the offices of the 3rd to 5th defendants were outside the court’s territorial jurisdiction, leave of court was mandatory under the Sheriff and Civil Process Act and the applicable rules of court.

He urged the court to exercise its discretion in his favour, submitting that the application was meritorious, in the interest of justice, and would not prejudice the defendants.