The Federal High Court in Abuja on Monday adjourned ruling on a motion filed by Binance Holdings Limited seeking to void the substituted service of court documents effected on it by the Federal Inland Revenue Service (FIRS), now known as the Nigeria Revenue Service, until April 21.

The adjournment followed the absence of the presiding judge, Justice Mohammed Umar, who was said to be attending another official engagement. Although counsel for all parties were present in court, the matter could not proceed.

The revenue agency has sued Binance and two of its representatives,Tigran Gambaryan and Nadeem Anjarwalla, seeking 79.5 billion dollars in damages over alleged economic losses arising from the company’s operations in Nigeria.

In the originating summons marked FHC/ABJ/CS/1444/2024, dated and filed on September 30, 2024, by Chief Kanu Agabi, SAN, the tax authority posed four questions for determination. Among other reliefs, it asked the court to decide whether, pursuant to Section 13(2) of the Companies Income Tax (CIT) Act, Cap. C21, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria (LFN), 2024, and Order 1(a) and (c) of the Companies Income Tax (Significant Economic Presence) Order 2020, the defendants are liable to pay annual corporate income tax to the Federal Government.

In a related development, another court presided over by Justice Emeka Nwite released Gambaryan in October 2024 after the Federal Government withdrew a money-laundering charge filed against him and the company by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC).

Anjarwalla, who had been detained alongside Gambaryan for tax evasion and other alleged offences, reportedly escaped from lawful custody on March 22, 2024.

The tax evasion case, previously before Justice Inyang Ekwo, was later reassigned to Justice Umar.

On February 11, 2025, Justice Ekwo granted leave to the FIRS to serve the originating summons and accompanying documents on the cryptocurrency firm by substituted means, including via the email address Eleanor-huges@binance.com.

In an ex parte motion, the revenue agency told the court it was unable to effect personal service because Binance had no physical presence in Nigeria.

Counsel for Binance, Mr. Chukwuka Ikwuazom, SAN, subsequently filed a motion on notice dated and filed on April 4, urging the court to set aside the ex parte order and nullify the purported substituted service by email.

Advancing a nine-ground argument, Ikwuazom submitted that Binance is a company registered and resident in the Cayman Islands. He argued that, under the rules of court, originating processes may only be served on a company by delivery to a director, secretary, or other principal officer, or by leaving the documents at the company’s registered office.

According to him, the processes of the court cannot be served on a company such as Binance by substituted means.

“By the Rules of this Court, service of originating processes outside jurisdiction can only be made in accordance with the provisions of Order 6 Rule 18 of the Rules of this Court (in the absence of a service convention) or in accordance with Order 6 Rule 20 of the Rules of this Honourable Court (where a service convention exists) and only after the leave of the Court to serve outside jurisdiction has been sought and granted,” he said.

He further argued that the FIRS failed to comply with the prescribed procedure for serving processes outside the court’s jurisdiction and did not obtain the necessary leave.

“The respondent also failed to obtain the required leave of this Honourable Court to serve the Originating Processes on the applicant outside the jurisdiction of this court,” he added.

Ikwuazom maintained that substituted service on a defendant outside the jurisdiction is only permissible where the foreign government or court certifies that attempts at service have failed, and he urged the court to grant the application. However, the FIRS opposed the motion.

In a counter-affidavit dated and filed on April 14, deposed to by Ishaya Isuwa, a litigation officer, the agency described Binance’s claims as false and concocted to mislead the court.

Isuwa disputed the assertion that Binance is registered or resident in the Cayman Islands, stating that the company’s registration status and residence remain shrouded in secrecy. He added that Binance had not produced any certificate of registration in the Cayman Islands.

“The 1st defendant (Binance) has no registered address in Cayman Islands but only has significant economic presence in Nigeria,” he said.

He explained that the company operates an online platform dealing in cryptocurrency and virtual currency transactions globally, including within Nigeria.

Contrary to Binance’s position, Isuwa stated that Eleanor Hughes, whose email address was used for service, is the company’s General Counsel and a principal officer who duly received the processes.

He said Hughes had, on March 5, 2024, written to the EFCC appointing the law firm of Aluko & Oyebode to represent Binance in connection with investigations into its Nigerian operations, and had also sent several official communications to the Federal Government using the same email address.

The officer added that the firm had been representing Binance in the ongoing investigations.

He further stated that attempts were made to serve the processes on Gambaryan at the Kuje Correctional Centre, but that he directed the bailiff to serve the documents on the law firm instead. When the bailiff approached Aluko & Oyebode, the firm allegedly declined to accept the documents, saying it had not been briefed by Binance.

Isuwa argued that the substituted service brought the suit to Binance’s knowledge, noting that the company had since briefed counsel, including Ikwuazom, to appear before the court.

He maintained that Binance had not demonstrated any miscarriage of justice arising from the mode of service and that service through Ms. Hughes constituted proper service in accordance with the rules of the court.

He urged the court to dismiss the application in the interest of justice.