This is more so because, when a process is filed in court, the said process is endorsed with the fees ‘service fees’, without any such service being done upon such charge and payment thereby made. What is later discovered is that the applicant or person filing the said process is confronted with by the Court’s Bailiff to demand his own fees which are un-prescribed and unreasonable and non-commensurate with the mileage of such service. That is why this paper is written calling for memoranda to determine whether the ‘service fees’ is legally charged by courts’ registries and whether after such charge and endorsement of the fees ‘service fees’ on courts’ processes, any other fees have to be paid to any Court’s bailiff in order to serve such court’s process for which service fees has already been charged and paid? First and foremost, it is the argument and submission of the writer of this paper that the issue of service fee has been provided for by Rules of all courts in Nigeria. For instance, under the new High Court of the Federal Capital Territory-Abuja, (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2018, Order 7 Rule 14 provides for ‘expenses of service’ thus ‘(1) The party requiring service of any process shall pay in advance all costs and expenses incidental to service. (2) The costs and expenses for service shall be as directed by the Chief Judge in Practice Direction from time to time’. Also, Order 29 of the repealed High Court of the Federal Capital Territory-Abuja (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2004 also provides in Order 11 Rule 29 thus ‘The costs incidental to the execution of process(es) in a suit shall be paid in the first place by the party requiring the execution, and the bailiff shall not (except by order of the Court) be bound to serve or execute any process unless the fess and reasonable expenses have been paid’. Furthermore, by the provisions of Part C of Order 6 Rule 28 of the Federal High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2009, on ‘expenses of service’ it is provided thus ‘the costs of and incidental to the execution of any process in a suit shall be paid in the first place by the party requiring the execution, and the sheriff shall not (except by order of the Court) be bound to serve or execute any process unless the fees and reasonable expenses thereof shall have been previously paid or tendered to him’.  And by Appendix 5, of the Federal High Court (Civil Procedure) Rule, 2009, of Regulation 6 of Regulation Regarding Fees, it is provided that ‘All fees for service, execution, and distance in kilometers shall be paid into revenue’, of which the Registrar has been mandated to endorse the fees paid and issue receipt for such payment by Regulations 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 7 of the said Regulations Regarding Fees. Similar provisions are made under the Fifth Schedule to the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory-Abuja (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2018 on Regulations Regarding Fees. Furthermore, the same thing as said above about service of court processes, the Sheriff and Civil Process Act, 2004 has provided in section 8, 11 and 18 on service of writs, duties of the Sheriff and the fees to be paid to form part of Consolidated Revenue Fund. Reference is further made to Order I Rules 4, 5, 6 and 16 of the Judgments (Enforcement) Rules of Court made pursuant to the Sheriff and Civil Process Act, among other provisions. From the above provisions of laws, there some facts that are clear as can be deduced as follows:

  1. The Court’s registrar is empowered to assess chargeable fees for service of court’s processes;
  2. A receipt shall be issued to the payer of such fees by the court’s registry or cashier;
  • Such payment of service fees shall be endorsed on the said process to be served by the court’s bailiff;
  1. Such payment for service of court’s processes shall be paid into revenue or consolidated Revenue Fund (of government);
  2. The payer of such service fees needs not pay any additional fees to any bailiff or sheriff of the court after having paid to the court’s registry;
  3. The Court’s Bailiff or Sheriff is duty bound to effect such service of the court’s process without demanding any additional fees in order to serve the said process;
  • Any such fees demanded to be paid after the payer has paid for service is illegal, unlawful and an act of corruption;
  • The Head of Court i.e. Chief Judge has the power to make Practice Direction/Directive on any fees inadequate commensurate with the kilometer or mileage of such service of court’s process;
  1. The current service fees being paid to court’s bailiff to effect service after the Registry of the court has charged the payer is illegal, unlawful and corruption of the court’s system.
  2. A person can undertake to serve his process and if he intends to serve by himself, he shall not be charged for any ‘service fees’ by the court’s registry or registrar upon filing of the process.
From the above deduced facts, it remains a great surprise that this practice of charging ‘service fees’ on court’s processes upon filing such processes in the court’s registry after which the payer would still be charged unreasonable and high fees by the Court’s Bailiff and or Sheriff, has been on for years but no stop has been made to it. This practice has also been instrumental to the alleged corruption especially, financial corruption being propagated in the Nigerian Court’s System. The Honourable the Chief Judges of all or various Courts too have contributed, with due respect, to this trending corrupt practices by their act of not making workable Practice Direction/Directive, which ought to be made public to all court’s users who are prospective payers for service fees. In fact, there have been different occasions where the writer of this paper had written several complaints to some Chief Judges on the highly charged service fees, some of which investigations have been concluded and some of which investigations are still on-going. Therefore, it remains the duty of all of us as lawyers and as payers of ‘service fees’ to speak against any unlawful and illegal charge of service fees where the Registry of courts would charge and endorse on the court’s process as service fees and the Court’s Bailiff or Sheriff would also stand his ground that unless and until he is paid for service, the amount which he personally fixes by himself and according to his financial needs and family financial challenges, he would not affect service of the process. Finally, the writer of this paper calls for as many memoranda as possible as a revolution against this unlawful and illegal charge by the Court and the Court’s Bailiff and or Sheriff at the financial detriment of the innocent and unsuspecting Nigerian public. Also, no matter the excuses for such action, the fact remains that payers have always been illegally double-charged by the Court for a very long period of time without suspecting, the act which the writer of this paper hereby humbly calls on the Honourable, the Chief Judges of all Courts to put a stop to with immediate effect. e-mail: hameed_ajibola@yahoo.com]]>

"Exciting news! TheNigeriaLawyer is now on WhatsApp Channels 🚀 Subscribe today by clicking the link and stay updated with the latest legal insights!" Click here! ....................................................................................................................... Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material and other digital content on this website, in whole or in part, without express and written permission from TheNigeriaLawyer, is strictly prohibited _________________________________________________________________ [Register Now] ILA Nigeria Branch Marks 10 Years With Infrastructure Financing As Theme For 7th Annual Conference The International Law Association - Nigeria Branch 7th annual conference on public-private partnerships for sustainable infrastructure financing, April 4-5 in Abuja. Details: https://ilanigeria.org.ng/conference _________________________________________________________________

Tel: 08066192650, 08033739869, 08061133497, info@hybridconsults.com, hybridconsult@yahoo.com