At all times material to this appeal, the Appellant was resident in the United States of America (USA), outside the jurisdiction of our Courts. The Appellant, as the plaintiff, instituted the suit at the High Court of Justice, sitting in Enugu.

He instituted the suit through his attorney, Arc. David Moh. His counsel was J.H.C. Okolo, SAN. All the Court processes, while the case was at the trial Court, were served on the Appellant through his counsel. That was the state of affairs until the trial High Court delivered judgment in the suit in favour of the Appellant, as the plaintiff.

The Respondent, as the defendant, aggrieved by the judgment of the trial Court, filed his notice of appeal against the said judgment on 19th March, 2004. The said appeal was governed by the Court of Appeal Rules, 2002, which then was extant. Order 3 Rule 6 (2) of the said Rules permitted the defendant, as the Appellant, to serve the Notice of Appeal on the plaintiff, as the respondent, in appeal at the address he had furnished at the trial Court, that is: c/o J.H.C. Okolo and Co., 162B ZIK Avenue, Enugu".

The requirement of the Rules that the Notice of Appeal shall be served on the respondent will in the circumstance of this case, be satisfied if and when the said Notice of Appeal was served on the counsel retained by the respondent at the trial Court. At the lower Court there were difficulties getting the Appellant, as the respondent, to participate in the hearing of the appeal against him.

The real problem in this appeal that the respondent herein has to contend with is the manner the processes were served on the Appellant herein after the lower Court made order that all processes for service on the Appellant herein, as the respondent in the Lower Court, shall be served on Arc. David Moh, who actually was the attorney through whom the Appellant maintained his suit at the trial Court.

The order for substituted service was specific that the processes for service on this Appellant, as the respondent in that Court shall be served on the said Arc. David Moh, and that by such service the Appellant, as the respondent, shall have been deemed to have been duly served. Until set aside this order remains valid. Neither the parties nor the bailiffs are empowered to alter the said order of the Lower Court. It is trite that subsisting orders of Court, right or wrong, are meant lo be obeyed and carried out. See ROSSEK v. A.C.B LTD (1993) 8 NWLR (pt. 312) 382. Until the order for substituted service made by the Lower Court was varied or modified, the bailiffs have no discretion as to how the order for substituted service shall be carried out.