Tips On Garnishee Proceedings Against The Government In Nigeria

By Hameed Ajibola Jimoh Esq.

Garnishee proceedings is one of the ways of enforcing money judgment in Nigeria. Sections: 83 and 84 of the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act, 2004-hereafter referred to as SCPA have made adequate provisions for these proceedings as well as Order VIII of the (Judgments Enforcement Rules) made pursuant to the SCPA (even though, for instance, ORDER 37 OF THE FEDERAL HIGH COURT (CIVIL PROCEDURE) RULES, 2019-herein after referred to as FHCR, also provides for Garnishee, it is my humble submission that this Order 37 of the FHCR is to be taken to the extent that its provisions are not in disputes or inconsistent with the SCPA. See: Hameed Ajibola Jimoh Esq. v AGF & Another, CA/A/643/2017, delivered on the 12^th day of August, 2022, (Unreported). Therefore, in my humble submission, the provisions of sections: 83 and 84 of the SCPA and the Order VIII of the Judgment Enforcement Rules, made thereto, become the guiding laws on garnishee proceedings because, a Statute such as the SCPA shall always prevail and recourse shall therefore be had to these sections in garnishee proceedings.

One of the greatest challenges of enforcing judgments through garnishee proceedings is enforcing money judgments against government (either of the Federation or of the States of the Federation whose moneys have by virtue of the Treasury Single Account Policy (TSA), been domiciled with the Central Bank of Nigeria-herein after referred to as CBN). This challenge has been so because the CBN is accustomed with raising Preliminary Objections against such judgements on the arguments of ‘non-obtainment of the consent of the Attorney-General of the Federation or of the State’ and before applying for an Order Nisi attaching the judgment sum belonging to the Judgment debtor in the custody of the garnishee ex parte. Even where the consent of the Attorney-General is sought, it is hardly granted! Therefore, it would seem that the continuous attitudes of the CBN in making its preliminary objections are often coated in bad faith to frustrate the efforts of the Judgment Creditor in whose favour the Judgment has been made (even in a fundamental rights enforcement suits). With due respect, this is one of those cases of social injustice in Nigeria, by the Nigerian government! This paper aims at sharing some tips in garnishee proceedings against governments whose moneys have been in custody of the CBN, perhaps, this tips might be useful for the reader in one way or the other. Also, I am aware that a number of judgments have been abandoned by the Judgment Creditors because of the frustration emanating from the CBN (even where many times as the cases have always been that the Judgment debtor (the government against whom the judgment has been held) does not appeal against the Judgement, the CBN picks up the battle for the government. Hence, this topic.

First and foremost, the issue of delay tactics undertaken by the government, the government’s agencies and the Central Bank of Nigeria to deny a judgment creditor the fruits of his judgment is well known in garnishee proceedings (even in a fundamental rights cases) after a Court of law has given judgment in favour of the judgment creditor to such an extent that a number of judgements have remained unenforced by the judgment creditors entitled to the enforcement of such judgment. The tool used for such delay by the government, its agencies and the Central Bank of Nigeria, is the provisions of section 84 of the SCPA, which requires ‘consent’ of the Attorney-General of the Federation or of the State as the case might be before the money in custody of a public officer can be garnisheed (after a court of law has finally decided the case against the government or any of its agencies!). It is my humble observation that the provisions of the section 84 of the SCPA was adopted into Nigeria by virtue of colonialism wherein it is assumed that ‘the King can do no wrong’ by virtue of ‘Petition of Rights’. These provisions of section 84 of the SCPA have been unjustly, inequitably and unfairly abused by the government and its agencies as well as the CBN to pay judgment sum/judgment debt and rather engage the Judgment Creditor in another battle in litigation even up to the Supreme Court of Nigeria for years if not even over ten (10) years! Whereas the government and its agencies do not pay any official money to the court to challenge the garnishee suit or file any court process in court even up to the Supreme Court of Nigeria! It is still this Judgment Creditor that continues to expend his monies to still prosecute and or enforce the judgment of the court of law held in his favour and including to defend the suits unjustly filed by the government, its agencies and the Central Bank of Nigeria! Fortunately, having regards to some extant provisions of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended)- herein after referred to as the Constitution- and that the ‘Petition of Rights’ has been held unconstitutional since the promulgation of the 1979 Constitution of Nigeria, it is my humble submission considered in this paper that the said provisions of the Constitution is invalid and unconstitutional!

Furthermore, the Federal Government of Nigeria, some of its agencies in collaboration with the Central Bank of Nigeria, for instance, have been unjustly relying on the provisions of Section 84(1) of the SCPA to deny a Judgment Creditor the fruits of his judgment held by the court of law in his favour. The said section 84 which provides that: ‘84(1) – Where money liable to be attached in garnishee proceedings is in the custody or under the control of a public officer in his official capacity or in custodial legis, the order nisi shall not be made under the provisions of the last proceeding Section unless consent to such attachment is first obtained from the appropriate officer in the case of money in the custody or control of a public officer or of a Court in the case of money in custodial legis, as the case may be.(3) In this section, appropriate officer means – (a) in relation to money which is in custody of a public officer who holds a public office in the service of the Federation, the Attorney-General of the Federation.’.

Furthermore, to settle an issue once and for all, I must state that it is possible that some governments especially of States and local governments might not be bound by and or apply the Treasury Single Account (TSA) by domiciling their moneys in the custody of the CBN and in this case, the moneys are likely domiciled in the custody of commercial banks in Nigeria. In this situation, it is my humble submission that it is the provisions of section 83 of the SCPA and Order VIII made thereto that would be applicable. Section 83(1) of the Sheriffs and Civil Process, Act, 2004 (as amended) which provides thus: ‘83. (1) The court may, upon the exparte application of any person who is entitled to the benefit of a judgement for the recovery or payment of money, either before or after any oral examination of the debtor liable under such judgment and upon affidavit by the applicant or his legal practitioner that judgment has been recovered and that it is still unsatisfied and to what amount and that any other person is indebted to such debtor and is within the State, order that debts owing from such third person, hereinafter called the garnishee, to such debtor shall be attached to satisfy the judgment or order, together with the costs of the garnishee proceedings and by the same or any subsequent order it may be ordered that the garnishee shall appear before the court to show cause why he should not pay to the person who has obtained such judgment or order the debt due from him to such debtor or so much thereof as may be sufficient to satisfy the judgment or order together with costs aforesaid. (Underlining is mine for emphasis).

I would therefore like to share one of my precedents on this application ex parte in this paper as a guide as follows, using the FHC as a reference:

‘IN THE FEDERAL HIGH COURT OF NIGERIA

IN THE ABUJA JUDICIAL DIVISION

HOLDEN AT ABUJA

SUIT NO: FHC/ABJ/CS/……./……

BETWEEN:

ABC …………. JUDGEMENT CREDITOR/GARNISHOR/APPLICANT

AND

FGC … JUDGEMENT DEBTOR

AND

JAIZ BANK PLC.
STANDARD CHARTERED BANK PLC.
SUNTRUST BANK PLC.
FORTIS MICRO FINANCE BANK PLC.
CITI BANK PLC.
ACEESS BANK NIGERIA PLC.
ECOBANK PLC.
FIRST CITY MONUMENT BANK PLC.
FIDELITY BANK PLC.

FIRST BANK OF NIGERIA PLC.
GUARANTY TRUST BANK PLC. GARNISHEES
HERITAGE BANK PLC.
KEYSTONE BANK PLC.
STANBIC BANK.
STERLING BANK PLC.
UNITED BANK FOR AFRICA.
UNITY BANK PLC.
UNION BANK PLC.
WEMA BANK PLC.
ZENITH BANK PLC.
HASAL MICRO-FINANCE BANK.
POLARIS BANK PLC.

MOTION EX-PARTE

PURSUANT TO SECTION 83(1) AND 86 OF THE SHERIFF AND CIVIL PROCESS ACT, ORDER VIII OF THE JUDGMENT ENFORCEMENT RULES, ORDER 37 OF THE FEDERAL HIGH COURT (CIVIL PROCEDURE) RULES, 2019 AND UNDER THE INHERENT JURISDICTION OF THE HONOURABLE COURT

TAKE NOTICE that this Honourable Court will be moved on the …………………… day of ……………………., 2022, at the hour of 9, O’clock in the forenoon or so soon thereafter as counsel may be heard on behalf of the Judgement Creditor/Applicant praying this Honourable Court for the following reliefs:

AN ORDER NISI of this Honourable Court attaching the sum of ……………….. only standing to the credit of the Judgement Debtor in any account operated by the Garnishees in the name of the Judgment Debtor or in any other account(s) howsoever designated or in whatever nomenclature named or couched or in whatever form(s) such an account is operated including digital belonging to the Judgment debtor to satisfy the judgment delivered on the ……………., in suit No.: FHC/ABJ/CS/……./…….., BETWEEN: ABC V FGC, BY HIS LORDSHIP, HONOURABLE JUSTICE…………………………… of the Federal High Court of Nigeria, Abuja, i.e. attached as Exhibit A.

AN ORDER of this Honourable Court directing the Garnishees to appear before this Honourable Court to show cause why they should not pay the Judgment Creditor to the above mentioned Judgment debt in the above mentioned account(s) in their custody.

AN ORDER directing the garnishees to appear before this Honourable Court to produce and or show the Bank Statement of account (s) in the above mentioned Banks accounts in their custody.

AN ORDER that service of the Decree/Order Nisi on the Garnishees shall bind the Garnishees and shall operate as an Order directing the Garnishees not to allow the Judgment debtor to withdraw from the above mentioned bank(s) in their custody below an amount sufficient to satisfy the Judgment debt.

AN ORDER OF COURT for the sum of …………………… only (N………………….) as the cost of garnishee proceedings against the Garnishees.

AND FOR SUCH FURTHER ORDER OR ORDERS as this Honourable Court may deem fit to make in the circumstances.

Dated this ………………………………… day of …………………………………., 2023.

…………………………………………………………

Hameed Ajibola Jimoh Esq.

(Judgement Creditor’s/Applicant’s/Garnishor’s Counsel)

Address for Service: THE VICEGERENT LEGAL CONSULT, No. 1, Salem Church Close, Off Dabban Street, Sabon-Geri Junction, Opp. ECWA Good News Church, Bwari, FCT-Abuja. Phone No: 08168292549, 08085567456. Email: [email protected] [email protected] SUPREME COURT’S ENROLLMENT NUMBER OF APPLICANT’S COUNSEL: SCN094209.

IN THE FEDERAL HIGH COURT OF NIGERIA

IN THE ABUJA JUDICIAL DIVISION

HOLDEN AT ABUJA

SUIT NO: ………………………………………………………….

BETWEEN:

ABC …………. JUDGEMENT CREDITOR/GARNISHOR/APPLICANT.

AND

FGC … JUDGEMENT DEBTOR

AND

JAIZ BANK PLC.
STANDARD CHARTERED BANK PLC.
SUNTRUST BANK PLC.
FORTIS MICRO FINANCE BANK PLC.
CITI BANK PLC.
ACEESS BANK NIGERIA PLC.
ECOBANK PLC.
FIRST CITY MONUMENT BANK PLC.
FIDELITY BANK PLC.

FIRST BANK OF NIGERIA PLC.
GUARANTY TRUST BANK PLC. GARNISHEES
HERITAGE BANK PLC.
KEYSTONE BANK PLC.
STANBIC BANK.
STERLING BANK PLC.
UNITED BANK FOR AFRICA.
UNITY BANK PLC.
UNION BANK PLC.
WEMA BANK PLC.
ZENITH BANK PLC.
HASAL MICRO-FINANCE BANK.
POLARIS BANK PLC.

AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION EX- PARTE

I, Hameed Ajibola Jimoh Esq., Male, Muslim, adult, legal practitioner, human right activist/advocate, Nigerian citizen, of THE VICEGERENT LEGAL CONSULT, No. 1, Salem Church Close, Off Dabban Street, Sabon-Geri Junction, Opp. ECWA Good News Church, Bwari, FCT-Abuja, and Counsel to the Judgement Creditor/ Applicant/ Garnishor, hereby solemnly make oath and state as follows:-

That I am the Judgment Creditor’s/Applicant’s/Garnishor’s Counsel in this suit and in the enforcement of fundamental rights of the Applicant’s suit and by virtue of which I am conversant with the facts that I depose to in this affidavit.

That I have the consent and authorization of the Judgment Creditor’s/Applicant’s/Garnishor’s Counsel to depose to this affidavit.

That Judgment was delivered in this case by this Honourable Court in Suit No.: FHC/ABJ/CS/…../……., BETWEEN: ABC V FGC, on the ……………………, by Honourable Justice ……………………., in the sum of …………………….. (N………..) only against the Judgement Debtor. A photocopy of the certified true copy of the said Judgment is attached to this affidavit and is marked as ‘Exhibit A’.

That since the Judgment was delivered by this Honourable Court, the Judgment debt has remained totally unsatisfied.

That I know that as a matter of fact and to the best of my knowledge, the Judgment Debtor is the holder of an account with the Garnishees or either of the Garnishees in this case and the Judgment Debtor is a …………………. Government’s Agency within the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court, whose account is in credit as would fulfill the Judgment Debt.

That the Judgment Debtor’s name is ‘………………….’ and has its last known address at its Federal Capital Territory-Abuja’s Command, …………, FCT-Abuja, and has its Headquarters in the FCT- Abuja, within the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court.

That to the best of my knowledge, the Garnishees have their Offices in the FCT- Abuja, within the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court and are indebted to the Judgment debtor.

That I know that this Honourable Court can make a Garnishee Order Nisi attaching the Judgment debt in this case which is in the custody of the Garnishees.

That I know to the best of my knowledge, that the Garnishees are bankers of the Judgment Debtor and maintain an account to the credit of the Judgment Debtor which is enough to settle the Judgment debt.

That the Judgment debtor has refused to pay the Judgment debt since the delivery of the said judgment by this Honourable Court on the …………….. till date (i.e. year 2023) and so, the Judgment debt has remained wholly unsatisfied.

That this application to the Court by the Judgment Creditor is to enable this Honourable Court to enforce the judgment it made on the ……………., and that it will not prejudice the interest of the Garnishees in any way.

That it will enhance the course of justice to grant this application.

That I depose to this affidavit conscientiously believing same to be true to the best of my knowledge and in accordance with the Oaths Act.

………………………………………………..

Deponent

Sworn to at the Federal High Court’s Registry, FCT-Abuja.

This ………………….. day of ……………………………………………….., 2023.

BEFORE ME

COMMISSIONER FOR OATHS

IN THE FEDERAL HIGH COURT OF NIGERIA

IN THE ABUJA JUDICIAL DIVISION

HOLDEN AT ABUJA

SUIT NO: FHC/ABJ/CS/…………./………………

MOTION NO: ……………..……………………………..

BETWEEN:

ABC …………. JUDGEMENT CREDITOR/GARNISHOR/APPLICANT.

AND

FGC … JUDGEMENT DEBTOR

AND

JAIZ BANK PLC.
STANDARD CHARTERED BANK PLC.
SUNTRUST BANK PLC.
FORTIS MICRO FINANCE BANK PLC.
CITI BANK PLC.
ACEESS BANK NIGERIA PLC.
ECOBANK PLC.
FIRST CITY MONUMENT BANK PLC.
FIDELITY BANK PLC.

FIRST BANK OF NIGERIA PLC.
GUARANTY TRUST BANK PLC. GARNISHEES
HERITAGE BANK PLC.
KEYSTONE BANK PLC.
STANBIC BANK.
STERLING BANK PLC.
UNITED BANK FOR AFRICA.
UNITY BANK PLC.
UNION BANK PLC.
WEMA BANK PLC.
ZENITH BANK PLC.
HASAL MICRO-FINANCE BANK.
POLARIS BANK PLC.

WRITTEN ADDRESS IN SUPPORT OF MOTION EX-PARTE

INTRODUCTION
- My Lord, this is an application brought by motion ex-parte pursuant to Sections: 83(1) and 86 of the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act, Order VIII of the Judgment Enforcement Rules, Order 37 of the Federal High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2019 and under the inherent jurisdiction of the Honourable Court.

My Lord, the application is supported by a 13-paragraphs affidavit deposed to by the Applicant/Judgement Creditor’s Counsel-Hameed Ajibola Jimoh Esq. we rely on all the paragraphs of the said affidavit.

My Lord, this application is seeking this Honourable Court for the following reliefs:

AN ORDER NISI of this Honourable Court attaching the sum of ……………….. only standing to the credit of the Judgement Debtor in any account operated by the Garnishees in the name of the Judgment Debtor or in any other account(s) howsoever designated or in whatever nomenclature named or couched or in whatever form(s) such an account is operated including digital belonging to the Judgment debtor to satisfy the judgment delivered on the ……………., in suit No.: FHC/ABJ/CS/……./…….., BETWEEN: ABC V FGC, BY HIS LORDSHIP, HONOURABLE JUSTICE…………………………… of the Federal High Court of Nigeria, Abuja, i.e. attached as Exhibit A.

AN ORDER of this Honourable Court directing the Garnishees to appear before this Honourable Court to show cause why they should not pay the Judgment Creditor to the above mentioned Judgment debt in the above mentioned account(s) in their custody.

AN ORDER directing the garnishees to appear before this Honourable Court to produce and or show the Bank Statement of account (s) in the above mentioned Banks accounts in their custody.

AN ORDER that service of the Decree/Order Nisi on the Garnishees shall bind the Garnishees and shall operate as an Order directing the Garnishees not to allow the Judgment debtor to withdraw from the above mentioned bank(s) in their custody below an amount sufficient to satisfy the Judgment debt.

AN ORDER OF COURT for the sum of …………………… only (N………………….) as the cost of garnishee proceedings against the Garnishees.

AND FOR SUCH FURTHER ORDER OR ORDERS as this Honourable Court may deem fit to make in the circumstances.

ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION

Whether this Honourable Court has the power(s) to grant this application?

LEGAL ARGUMENT.

My Lord, it is our humble submission that this Honourable Court has the power(s) to grant this application.

My Lord, our submission is clothed by the provisions of Section 83(1) of the Sheriffs and Civil Process, Act, 2004 (as amended) which provides thus:

‘83. (1) The court may, upon the exparte application of any person who is entitled to the benefit of a judgement for the recovery or payment of money, either before or after any oral examination of the debtor liable under such judgment and upon affidavit by the applicant or his legal practitioner that judgment has been recovered and that it is still unsatisfied and to what amount and that any other person is indebted to such debtor and is within the State, order that debts owing from such third person, hereinafter called the garnishee, to such debtor shall be attached to satisfy the judgment or order, together with the costs of the garnishee proceedings and by the same or any subsequent order it may be ordered that the garnishee shall appear before the court to show cause why he should not pay to the person who has obtained such judgment or order the debt due from him to such debtor or so much thereof as may be sufficient to satisfy the judgment or order together with costs aforesaid. We also humbly rely on Order 37 of the Federal High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2019. (Underlining is mine for emphasis).

Also My Lord, Order VIII, especially Rules: 2 and 3, of the Judgment (Enforcement) Rules made pursuant to the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act confers such powers on this Court as it provides thus

‘2. Garnishee proceedings may be taken-

where the debt is not yet payable, or is for an amount exceeding the jurisdiction of such court, in any court in which the judgment debtor could have sued the garnishee as aforesaid if the debt had been immediately payable or had not exceeded the jurisdiction.

(1) A judgment creditor who desires to take garnishee proceedings shall file in the court registry-

(a) an affidavit in Form 25; and

if the garnishee proceedings are taken in a court other than the court in which the judgment was given or made, a certified copy of the judgment.

(2) The registrar shall thereupon enter the proceedings in the books of the court and fix a day for the hearing and issue an order nisi in Form 26 and make all necessary copies thereof.

My Lord, we humbly rely on the facts and or depositions stated at paragraphs 1-13 of the Applicant’s/Judgment Creditor’s Counsel in this Court in urging Your Lordship to grant this application.

Furthermore, My Lord, we humbly submit that this Honourable Court even has the power to compel the Garnishees to disclose the Judgment Debtor’s account(s) in their custody (the Judgment Debtor being an Agency of the Federal Government), regardless of whether or not the Judgment Creditor provides any specific bank account of the Judgment Debtor being operated by the Garnishee. We humbly place reliance on the case of FIDELITY BANK v. ONWUKA CITATION: (2017) LPELR-42839(CA) Per OGUNWUMIJU, J.C.A. (Pp. 15-22, Paras. A-A) where it was held as follows:

‘In other words, one of the exceptions to the duty of conﬁdentiality owed a customer by the bank is where there is a Court order compelling the disclosure of the account details or any other information of a customer. Such Court order obviates the liability that a bank would ordinarily incur in the event of a breach of the duty of conﬁdentiality. An Order Nisi is no less an order of Court and the Appellant is bound by it.’. This Honourable Court is urged to so hold. We also humbly rely on the case of Mr Clement T. Utavie & Ors. V The Capital Development Authority & Ors. (2019) LPELR- 49095 (CA).

My Lord, it is as a result of the depositions and or facts stated in the affidavit in support of this application and the above referenced laws and the judicial precedents relied upon especially the case of: Mr Clement T. Utavie & Ors. V The Capital Development Authority & Ors. (2019) LPELR- 49095 (CA), (supra) that the Applicant/Judgment Creditor/Garnishor urges and pray this Honourable Court to utilize its powers judicially and judiciously in granting this application.

CONCLUSION
- My Lord, the Applicant/Judgement Creditor/Garnishor urges and pray this Honourable Court to grant this application.

We are very grateful, My Lord.

Dated this ………………………………… day of …………………………………., 2023.

…………………………………………………………

Hameed Ajibola Jimoh Esq.

(Judgement Creditor’s/Applicant’s/Garnishor’s Counsel)

Address for Service:

THE VICEGERENT LEGAL CONSULT,

No. 1, Salem Church Close, Off Dabban Street, Sabon-Geri Junction,

Opp. ECWA Good News Church, Bwari, FCT-Abuja.

Phone No: 08168292549, 08085567456. Email: [email protected], [email protected]

SUPREME COURT’S ENROLLMENT NUMBER OF APPLICANT’S COUNSEL: SCN094209.’.

Furthermore, in my humble view, where the Garnishee proceedings relates to an enforcement of Judgment against Governments that have their moneys in the custody of the CBN especially, based on the Treasury Single Account (TSA), (though, I must state here that our courts have held that ‘THERE IS NO NEED TO SEEK CONSENT OF THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF THE FEDERATION OR OF THE STATE (AS THE CASE MIGHT BE BECAUSE THE CBN IS NOT A PUBLIC OFFICER TO WARRANT THE CONSENT OF THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL TO BE SOUGHT AND OR OBTAINED)) as would be seen in some of the legal authorities that are contained in my Respondent’s Brief of Arguments that I shall share below, which was a brief that I had filed challenging the appeal filed by the CBN at the Court of Appeal of Nigeria against a Garnishee Proceedings made absolute by the Federal High Court, Abuja, in favour of my Client. Therefore, in this regard, the above precedent relying on section 83 of the SCPA should be or may be used. Nevertheless what I just said, to be on the part of being in a surplus situation, I would advise that the consent of the Attorney-General should be sought by the Judgment Creditor or his counsel (even though, the consent might not most often be granted). I shall share a precedent of one of my letters/requests for the consent of the Attorney-General of the Federal in a Judgment against an agency of the Federal Government as follows:

‘22^nd July, 2022.

The Honourable, the Attorney-General of the Federation,

Office of the Honourable, the Attorney-General of the Federation,

Federal Ministry of Justice,

Abuja.

Your Excellency,

RE: Suit No.: FHC/ABJ/CS/………./……….., BETWEEN: ABC V FGC.

APPLICATION/REQUEST FOR CONSENT OF YOUR EXCELLENCY (THE HONOURABLE, THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF THE FEDERATION) TO ATTACH ALL MONIES DOMICILED WITH ANY BANK IN NIGERIA AND OR ALL MONIES DOMICILED WITH THE CENTRAL BANK OF NIGERIA OR SO MUCH THEREOF AS MAY BE SUFFICIENT TO SATISFY THE JUDGMENT SUM OF ……………….. (N……………..) ONLY AS JUDGMENT DEBT STANDING TO THE CREDIT OF THE JUDGEMENT DEBTOR (I.E. …………………) AND OR ATTACHING THE JUDGMENT DEBTOR’S SHARES OF MONIES IN THE SINGLE TREASURY ACCOUNT (TSA) OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF NIGERIA DOMICILED (SIC) WITH THE CENTRAL BANK OF NIGERIA OR SO MUCH THEREOF AS MAY BE SUFFICIENT TO SATISFY THE JUDGMENT SUM OR MONIES DOMICILED IN ANY BANK ACCOUNT(S) HOWSOEVER DESIGNATED OR IN WHATEVER NOMENCLATURE NAMED OR COUCHED BELONGING TO THE JUDGMENT DEBTOR TO SATISFY THE JUDGMENT DELIVERED ON THE ………………., IN SUIT NO.: FHC/ABJ/CS/…………/………., BETWEEN: ABC V FGC, BY HIS LORDSHIP, HONOURABLE JUSTICE …………………….. OF THE FEDERAL HIGH COURT OF NIGERIA, ABUJA, I.E. ATTACHED AS ANNEXURE A, PURSUANT TO SECTION 84 OF THE SHERIFFS AND CIVIL PROCESS ACT, 2004.

The above subject matter refers, please.

I am the Counsel to one ‘……………..’ -herein after referred to as ‘JUDGMENT CREDITOR’, on whose authority (and on behalf of whom I write this letter) and in favour of whom the Federal High Court of Nigeria, Abuja, had awarded the sum of ……………….. (N……………..) against the …………………… (an agency of the Federal Government of Nigeria)-here in this letter referred to as ‘JUDGMENT DEBTOR’ on the …………………… in a fundamental rights enforcement suit. A photocopy of the said Judgment is hereby attached to this letter and is marked as ‘ANNEXURE A’.

I therefore humbly apply and or request for the ‘Consent’ of Your Excellency (THE HONOURABLE, THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF THE FEDERATION) TO ATTACH ALL MONIES DOMICILED WITH ANY BANK IN NIGERIA AND OR ALL MONIES DOMICILED WITH THE CENTRAL BANK OF NIGERIA OR SO MUCH THEREOF AS MAY BE SUFFICIENT TO SATISFY THE JUDGMENT SUM OF ……………….. (N……………..) ONLY AS JUDGMENT DEBT STANDING TO THE CREDIT OF THE JUDGEMENT DEBTOR (I.E. …………………) AND OR ATTACHING THE JUDGMENT DEBTOR’S SHARES OF MONIES IN THE SINGLE TREASURY ACCOUNT (TSA) OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF NIGERIA DOMICILED (SIC) WITH THE CENTRAL BANK OF NIGERIA OR SO MUCH THEREOF AS MAY BE SUFFICIENT TO SATISFY THE JUDGMENT SUM OR MONIES DOMICILED IN ANY BANK ACCOUNT(S) HOWSOEVER DESIGNATED OR IN WHATEVER NOMENCLATURE NAMED OR COUCHED BELONGING TO THE JUDGMENT DEBTOR TO SATISFY THE JUDGMENT DELIVERED ON THE ………………., IN SUIT NO.: FHC/ABJ/CS/…………/………., BETWEEN: ABC V FGC, BY HIS LORDSHIP, HONOURABLE JUSTICE …………………….. OF THE FEDERAL HIGH COURT OF NIGERIA, ABUJA, I.E. ATTACHED AS ANNEXURE A, PURSUANT TO SECTION 84 OF THE SHERIFFS AND CIVIL PROCESS ACT, 2004.

We believe that in the interest of justice in the Judgment Creditor’s case for the Judgment Creditor to enjoy the fruits of the Judgment held in his favour since ………….., Your Excellency shall grant our application, (sic) as we await your responds (sic). HOWEVER, TAKE NOTICE that Your Excellency’s consent/refusal should be communicated to us in writing within fourteen days (14) from the date of receiving this letter and Your Excellency’s failure and or negligence to do so of which (sic) shall be interpreted as consent for the purpose for which same has been sought in this letter.

Yours faithfully,

……………………………………………

Hameed Ajibola Jimoh Esq.

Judgment Creditor’s Counsel.

SUPREME COURT’S ENROLLMENT NUMBER OF THE JUDGMENT CREDITOR’S COUNSEL: SCN094209.’.

Therefore, after the expiration of the given fourteen days (14) by the letter/request for consent, the Judgment Creditor or his Counsel is then at liberty to apply to the Court for an attachment of the moneys in the custody of the Garnishee (i.e. CBN) I would like to share one of my precedents on this application ex parte in this paper as a guide as follows, using the FHC as a reference:

‘IN THE FEDERAL HIGH COURT OF NIGERIA

IN THE ABUJA JUDICIAL DIVISION

HOLDEN AT ABUJA

SUIT NO: …………………………………………………………………………

BETWEEN:

ABC …………. JUDGEMENT CREDITOR/GARNISHOR/APPLICANT.

AND

FGC ……… JUDGEMENT DEBTOR.

AND

CENTRAL BANK OF NIGERIA …………….. GARNISHEE

MOTION EX-PARTE

PURSUANT TO SECTION 83(1), 84 AND 86 OF THE SHERIFFS AND CIVIL PROCESS ACT CAP. S16 LAWS OF THE FEDERATION OF NIGERIA, 2004, ORDER VIII OF THE JUDGMENT ENFORCEMENT RULES, ORDER 37 OF THE FEDERAL HIGH COURT (CIVIL PROCEDURE) RULES, 2019 AND UNDER THE INHERENT JURISDICTION OF THE HONOURABLE COURT

TAKE NOTICE that this Honourable Court will be moved on the …………………… day of ……………………., 2023, at the hour of 9, O’clock in the forenoon or so soon thereafter as counsel may be heard on behalf of the Judgement Creditor/Applicant praying this Honourable Court for the following reliefs:

AN ORDER NISI of this Honourable Court attaching all monies domiciled with the Garnishee or so much thereof as may be sufficient to satisfy the judgment sum of ………………. (N…………………….) only as judgment debt standing to the credit of the judgement debtor (i.e. …………………….. (and an agency of the Federal Government of the Federal Republic of Nigeria)) to satisfy the judgment of this Honourable Court, delivered on the ……………………, in SUIT NO.: FHC/ABJ/CS/………../…………., BETWEEN: ABC V FGC, DELIVERED BY HIS LORDSHIP, HONOURABLE JUSTICE …………………….., i.e. the said Judgment of the Federal High Court of Nigeria and the Enrolled Order of the Judgment are attached as Exhibits: A and B, respectively.

AN ORDER NISI of this Honourable Court attaching all monies domiciled with the Garnishee or so much thereof as may be sufficient to satisfy the monetary cost of ……………………. Only (N…………….) awarded by this Honourable Court against the Judgment debtor and in favour of the Judgment Creditor as judgment debt standing to the credit of the judgement debtor (i.e. ……………………….. (and an agency of the Federal Government of the Federal Republic of Nigeria)) to satisfy the judgment of this Honourable Court delivered on the ……………………….., in SUIT NO.: FHC/ABJ/CS/…………/……….., BETWEEN: ABC V FGC, DELIVERED BY HIS LORDSHIP, HONOURABLE JUSTICE …………….. i.e. the said Judgment of the Federal High Court of Nigeria and the Enrolled Order of the Judgment are attached as Exhibits: A and B, respectively.

AN ORDER NISI of this Honourable Court attaching the Judgment Debtor’s shares and or entitlements of monies in the Treasury Single Account (TSA) and or the Federal Account(s) of the Federation of the Federal Government of Nigeria domiciled (sic) with the Garnishee or so much thereof as may be sufficient to satisfy the judgment sum of ………………… (N……………….) only and the monetary cost of ………….. Only (N…………………..) awarded by this Honourable Court against the Judgment debtor and in favour of the Judgment Creditor to satisfy the judgment of this Honourable Court delivered on the ………………, in SUIT NO.: FHC/ABJ/CS/………../……………, BETWEEN: ABC V FGC, DELIVERED BY HIS LORDSHIP, HONOURABLE JUSTICE, i.e. the said Judgment of the Federal High Court of Nigeria and the Enrolled Order of the Judgment are attached as Exhibits: A and B, respectively.

AN ORDER NISI of this Honourable Court attaching the sum of …………………… (N……………………) only and the monetary cost of …………………… Only (N…………….) awarded by this Honourable Court against the Judgment debtor and in favour of the Judgment Creditor in any account domiciled with the garnishee howsoever designated or in whatever nomenclature named or couched or in whatever form(s) such an account is operated including digital belonging to the judgment debtor (an agency of the Federal Government of the Federal Republic of Nigeria) or to which the judgment debtor is entitled to and or belonging to the Federal Government of the Federal Republic of Nigeria to satisfy the judgment of this Honourable Court delivered on …………………, in SUIT NO.: FHC/ABJ/CS/………../…………., BETWEEN: ABC V FGC, DELIVERED BY HIS LORDSHIP, HONOURABLE JUSTICE ………………………….., i.e. the said Judgment of the Federal High Court of Nigeria and the Enrolled Order of the Judgment are attached as Exhibits: A and B, respectively.

AN ORDER of this Honourable Court directing the Garnishee to appear before this Honourable Court to show cause why the Judgment debts attached above should not be made absolute by this Honourable Court and paid to the Judgment Creditor/Applicant by the Garnishee forthwith.

AN ORDER OF COURT for the cost of this garnishee proceedings against the Garnishee.

AND FOR SUCH FURTHER ORDER OR ORDERS as this Honourable Court may deem fit to make in the circumstances.

Dated this ………………………………… day of …………………………………., 2023.

…………………………………………………………

Hameed Ajibola Jimoh Esq.

(Judgement Creditor’s/Applicant’s/Garnishor’s Counsel)

IN THE FEDERAL HIGH COURT OF NIGERIA

IN THE ABUJA JUDICIAL DIVISION

HOLDEN AT ABUJA

SUIT NO: …………………………………………………………………………

BETWEEN:

ABC …………. JUDGEMENT CREDITOR/GARNISHOR/APPLICANT

AND

FGC ……………. JUDGEMENT DEBTOR.

AND

CENTRAL BANK OF NIGERIA …………….. GARNISHEE/1^ST RESPONDENT.

AND

AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION EX- PARTE

That I am the Judgment Creditor’s/Applicant’s/Garnishor’s Counsel in this suit and in the enforcement of fundamental rights of the Applicant’s suit and by virtue of which I am conversant with the facts that I depose to in this affidavit.

That I have the consent and authorization of the Judgment Creditor’s/Applicant’s/Garnishor’s Counsel to depose to this affidavit.

That Judgment was delivered in favour of the Judgment Creditor/Garnishor/Applicant by this Honourable Court in Suit No: FHC/ABJ/CS/………………./…………, BETWEEN: ABC V FGC, on the ………………., in the sum of ………………….. (N………………………) only and Monetary Cost of ……………………………… only (N……………..) against the Judgement Debtor (an agency of the Federal Government of the Federal Republic of Nigeria). A photocopy of the certified true copy of the said Judgment and the enrolled order of the said Judgment are attached to this affidavit and are marked as ‘Exhibits: A and B, respectively’.
That since the Judgment was delivered by the Court of Appeal of Nigeria, the Judgment debt has remained totally unsatisfied.
That I know that as a matter of fact and to the best of my knowledge, the Judgment Debtor and the Federal Government of the Federal Republic of Nigeria are respectively and jointly holders of an account/accounts and or monies and or shares of monies with the Garnishee in this case having regard to the Treasury Single Account (TSA)’s policy of the Federal Government of the Federal Republic of Nigeria and the Judgment Debtor is a Federal Government’s Agency within the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court, whose account is in credit as would fulfill the Judgment Debt.
That the Judgment Debtor’s name is ‘……………….’ and has its last known address at its Federal Capital Territory-Abuja’s Command, ………….., FCT-Abuja, and has its Headquarters in the FCT- Abuja, within the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court.

That to the best of my knowledge, the Garnishees have their Offices in the FCT- Abuja, within the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court and are indebted to the Judgment debtor.

That having regard to the requirement for ‘consent’ of the Attorney-General of the Federation of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, pursuant to the provisions of Section 84 of the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act, Cap. S16 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004, on the ………………, I had (on behalf of and on the authority of the Judgment Creditor/Applicant) written a letter (dated the ………………… but acknowledged by the Attorney-General of the Federation on the ………………..) seeking the Attorney-General of the Federation’s consent to attach the judgment debts in the custody of the Garnishee.

That the said application/request was acknowledged by the Attorney-General through his Registry at the Federal Ministry of Justice, Abuja. The photocopy of the acknowledged copy of the said letter is hereby attached to this affidavit and is marked as Exhibit C.

That paragraph 4 of the said letter seeking consent (i.e. Exhibit C) of the Attorney-General of the Federation clearly provides thus

‘We believe that in the interest of justice in the Judgment Creditor’s case for the Judgment Creditor to enjoy the fruits of the Judgment held in his favour, Your Excellency shall grant our application, (sic) as we await your responds (sic). HOWEVER, TAKE NOTICE that Your Excellency’s consent/refusal should be communicated to us in writing within fourteen days (14) from the date of receiving this letter and Your Excellency’s failure and or negligence to do so of which (sic) shall be interpreted as consent for the purpose for which same has been sought in this letter.’.

That the said fourteen (14) days has elapsed and the Attorney-General of the Federation has failed and or refused to communicate his consent or refusal as requested by the letter seeking his consent (i.e. Exhibit C) till the date of this application before this Honourable Court.

That having regards to my depositions in the above paragraphs of this affidavit and paragraph 4 of the said letter i.e. Exhibit C, the only clear fact to the best of my knowledge is that the Attorney-General of the Federation is fully aware by the said letter requesting his consent (i.e. Exhibit C) that failure and or negligence to do communicate his consent or refusal of same within the said fourteen (14) days shall be interpreted as consent for the purpose for which same has been sought in the letter.

That the Attorney-General of the Federation has failed and or refused to communicate his consent or refusal and so, having regards to paragraph 4 of the said letter i.e. Exhibit C, the Attorney-General of the Federation’s refusal to communicate his consent is deemed as ‘consent’ for the purpose of this garnishee proceedings.

That to the best of my knowledge, the principle underlying securing the Attorney-General of the Federation’s consent as prescribed in section 84 of the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act, Cap. S16 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004, is to avoid embarrassment on the Attorney-General of the Federation of not having the prior knowledge that funds earmarked for some purposes have been diverted in satisfaction of a judgment debt, which the government may not know anything about, hence, the reason for seeking the consent of the Attorney-General of the Federation before initiating this garnishee proceedings so that the attachment of the judgment debt against the Judgment debtor and or against the Federation account of the Federal Government of the Federal Republic of Nigeria in the custody of the Garnishee would be to his i.e. the Attorney-General of the Federation’s knowledge and or awareness.

That I know that this Honourable Court can make a Garnishee Order Nisi attaching the Judgment debt in this case which is in the custody of the Garnishee.

That I know to the best of my knowledge, that the Garnishee is a banker of the Judgment Debtor, the Federal Government of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, and maintain an account and keeps custody of the monies and or share of monies to the credit of the Judgment Debtor and that of the Federal Government of the Federal Republic of Nigeria which is enough to settle the Judgment debt.

That the Judgment debtor has refused to pay the Judgment debt since the delivery of the said judgment by this Honourable Court, on the ……………, till date and so, the Judgment debt has remained wholly unsatisfied.

That this application to the Court by the Judgment Creditor is to enable this Honourable Court to enforce the judgment made by this Honourable Court on the ……………., and that it will not prejudice the interest of the Garnishee in any way.

That it will enhance the cause of justice for this Court to grant this application.

That I depose to this affidavit conscientiously believing same to be true to the best of my knowledge and in accordance with the Oaths Act.

………………………………………………..

Deponent

Sworn to at the Federal High Court’s Registry, FCT-Abuja.

This ………………….. day of ……………………………………………….., 2023.

BEFORE ME

COMMISSIONER FOR OATHS

IN THE FEDERAL HIGH COURT OF NIGERIA

IN THE ABUJA JUDICIAL DIVISION

HOLDEN AT ABUJA

SUIT NO: …………………………………………………………………………

BETWEEN:

ABC …………. JUDGEMENT CREDITOR/GARNISHOR/APPLICANT.

AND

FGC ………… JUDGEMENT DEBTOR.

AND

CENTRAL BANK OF NIGERIA …………….. GARNISHEE/1^ST RESPONDENT.

WRITTEN ADDRESS IN SUPPORT OF MOTION EX-PARTE

INTRODUCTION
- My Lord, this is an application brought by motion ex-parte pursuant to Sections: 83(1), 84(1) and 86 of the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act, Cap. S16 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004Order VIII of the Judgment Enforcement Rules, Order 37 of the Federal High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2019 and under the inherent jurisdiction of the Honourable Court.

My Lord, the application is supported by a 20-paragraphs affidavit deposed to by the Applicant/Judgement Creditor’s Counsel- Hameed Ajibola Jimoh Esq. We rely on all the paragraphs of the said affidavit.

My Lord, this application is seeking this Honourable Court for the following reliefs:

AN ORDER NISI of this Honourable Court attaching all monies domiciled with the Garnishee or so much thereof as may be sufficient to satisfy the judgment sum of ………………. (N…………………….) only as judgment debt standing to the credit of the judgement debtor (i.e. …………………….. (and an agency of the Federal Government of the Federal Republic of Nigeria)) to satisfy the judgment of this Honourable Court, delivered on the ……………………, in SUIT NO.: FHC/ABJ/CS/………../…………., BETWEEN: ABC V FGC, DELIVERED BY HIS LORDSHIP, HONOURABLE JUSTICE …………………….., i.e. the said Judgment of the Federal High Court of Nigeria and the Enrolled Order of the Judgment are attached as Exhibits: A and B, respectively.

AN ORDER NISI of this Honourable Court attaching all monies domiciled with the Garnishee or so much thereof as may be sufficient to satisfy the monetary cost of ……………………. Only (N…………….) awarded by this Honourable Court against the Judgment debtor and in favour of the Judgment Creditor as judgment debt standing to the credit of the judgement debtor (i.e. ……………………….. (and an agency of the Federal Government of the Federal Republic of Nigeria)) to satisfy the judgment of this Honourable Court delivered on the ……………………….., in SUIT NO.: FHC/ABJ/CS/…………/……….., BETWEEN: ABC V FGC, DELIVERED BY HIS LORDSHIP, HONOURABLE JUSTICE …………….. i.e. the said Judgment of the Federal High Court of Nigeria and the Enrolled Order of the Judgment are attached as Exhibits: A and B, respectively.

AN ORDER NISI of this Honourable Court attaching the Judgment Debtor’s shares and or entitlements of monies in the Treasury Single Account (TSA) and or the Federal Account(s) of the Federation of the Federal Government of Nigeria domiciled (sic) with the Garnishee or so much thereof as may be sufficient to satisfy the judgment sum of ………………… (N……………….) only and the monetary cost of ………….. Only (N…………………..) awarded by this Honourable Court against the Judgment debtor and in favour of the Judgment Creditor to satisfy the judgment of this Honourable Court delivered on the ………………, in SUIT NO.: FHC/ABJ/CS/………../……………, BETWEEN: ABC V FGC, DELIVERED BY HIS LORDSHIP, HONOURABLE JUSTICE, i.e. the said Judgment of the Federal High Court of Nigeria and the Enrolled Order of the Judgment are attached as Exhibits: A and B, respectively.

AN ORDER NISI of this Honourable Court attaching the sum of …………………… (N……………………) only and the monetary cost of …………………… Only (N…………….) awarded by this Honourable Court against the Judgment debtor and in favour of the Judgment Creditor in any account domiciled with the garnishee howsoever designated or in whatever nomenclature named or couched or in whatever form(s) such an account is operated including digital belonging to the judgment debtor (an agency of the Federal Government of the Federal Republic of Nigeria) or to which the judgment debtor is entitled to and or belonging to the Federal Government of the Federal Republic of Nigeria to satisfy the judgment of this Honourable Court delivered on …………………, in SUIT NO.: FHC/ABJ/CS/………../…………., BETWEEN: ABC V FGC, DELIVERED BY HIS LORDSHIP, HONOURABLE JUSTICE ………………………….., i.e. the said Judgment of the Federal High Court of Nigeria and the Enrolled Order of the Judgment are attached as Exhibits: A and B, respectively.

AN ORDER of this Honourable Court directing the Garnishee to appear before this Honourable Court to show cause why the Judgment debts attached above should not be made absolute by this Honourable Court and paid to the Judgment Creditor/Applicant by the Garnishee forthwith.

AN ORDER OF COURT for the cost of this garnishee proceedings against the Garnishee.

AND FOR SUCH FURTHER ORDER OR ORDERS as this Honourable Court may deem fit to make in the circumstances.

ISSUE FOR DETERMINATION:

Whether this Honourable Court has the power(s) to grant this application?

LEGAL ARGUMENT.

My Lord, it is our humble submission that this Honourable Court has the power(s) to grant this application.

My Lord, our submission is clothed by the provisions of Section 83(1) of the Sheriffs and Civil Process, Act, 2004 (as amended) which provides thus:

Also My Lord, Order VIII, especially Rules: 2 and 3, of the Judgment (Enforcement) Rules made pursuant to the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act confers such powers on this Court as it provides thus

‘2. Garnishee proceedings may be taken-

in any court in which the judgment debtor could, under the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules or under the appropriate section or rule governing civil procedure in Magistrates’ Courts, as the case may be, sue the garnishee in respect of the debt; or where the debt is not yet payable, or is for an amount exceeding the jurisdiction of such court, in any court in which the judgment debtor could have sued the garnishee as aforesaid if the debt had been immediately payable or had not exceeded the jurisdiction.

(1) A judgment creditor who desires to take garnishee proceedings shall file in the court registry-

(a) an affidavit in Form 25; and if the garnishee proceedings are taken in a court other than the court in which the judgment was given or made, a certified copy of the judgment (Underlining is mine for emphasis).

(2) The registrar shall thereupon enter the proceedings in the books of the court and fix a day for the hearing and issue an order nisi in Form 26 and make all necessary copies thereof.

Also, we rely on the provisions of Section 84(1) of the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act Cap. S16 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004 which provides that:

‘84(1) – Where money liable to be attached in garnishee proceedings is in the custody or under the control of a public officer in his official capacity or in custodial legis, the order nisi shall not be made under the provisions of the last proceeding Section unless consent to such attachment is first obtained from the appropriate officer in the case of money in the custody or control of a public officer or of a Court in the case of money in custodial legis, as the case may be.(3) In this section, appropriate officer means – (a) in relation to money which is in custody of a public officer who holds a public office in the service of the Federation, the Attorney-General of the Federation.’.

My Lord, we humbly rely on the facts and or depositions stated at paragraphs 1-19 of the Applicant’s/Judgment Creditor’s Counsel in this Court in urging Your Lordship to grant this application.

Furthermore, My Lord, we humbly submit that this Honourable Court even has the power to compel the Garnishee to disclose the Judgment Debtor’s account(s) in their custody (the Judgment Debtor being an Agency of the Federal Government), regardless of whether or not the Judgment Creditor provides any specific bank account of the Judgment Debtor being operated by the Garnishee. We humbly place reliance on the case of FIDELITY BANK v. ONWUKA CITATION: (2017) LPELR-42839(CA) Per OGUNWUMIJU, J.C.A. (Pp. 15-22, Paras. A-A) where it was held as follows:

My Lord, it is as a result of the depositions and or facts stated in the affidavit in support of this application and the above referenced laws and the judicial precedent relied upon (supra), that the Applicant/Judgment Creditor/Garnishor urges and pray this Honourable Court to utilize its powers judicially and judiciously in granting this application.

My Lord, we humbly submit that the Attorney-General of the Federation is a public officer saddled with the responsibility of discharging public duties and therefore expected to operate in the interest of public policy and public interest.

My Lord, we therefore humbly submit that having regard to the above submissions, an insistence on the express consent of the Attorney-General of the Federation in the instance case, will not only occasion a miscarriage of justice, but will also erode public confidence in the Court if judgment creditor is unable to enjoy the fruit of the judgment (the subject matter of this garnishee proceedings) because the Attorney-General did not expressly write to convey his consent where public funds is sought to be attached, despite the judgment creditor requesting for same in accordance with the law by virtue of Exhibit C attached to the affidavit in support of this application and we urge this Honourable Court to take cognizance of the facts stated at paragraphs: 8 to 14 of the affidavit in support of this application and we rely those paragraphs in support of this application. We therefore humbly urge this Honourable Court to hold that in the present circumstance and peculiarity of this case, that there is need to dispense with the express consent of the Attorney-General of the Federation as insisting on such would be putting an unnecessary technical clog on the path of the judgment creditor and thereby frustrating his efforts to enjoy the fruit of his judgment. This Honourable Court is urged to so hold.

My Lord, we humbly submit that it is the trite position of law that ‘if person writes you a letter demanding for his money, failure to respond to the letter is an admission that you are owing him’. We humbly rely on the case of FIRST CONTINENTAL PROPERTIES LTD v. DIVINE TRIOP LTD (2017) LPELR-CA/A/13/2015.

Also, we equally submit most humbly that it is a trite position of law that ‘where a creditor makes a demand for settlement of a debt by a letter and the amount of the debt is contained in the letter and the debtor does not query the figure written in the letter as the overall debt due but rather writes a letter explaining the reasons for non-payment of the debt, the debtor will be deemed to have impliedly admitted the quoted figure as the amount of debt due’. We humbly rely on the case of BAGOBIRI v. UNITY BANK PLC (2016) LPELR-CA/K/50/2011.

Furthermore, My Lord, we humbly submit that the Supreme Court of Nigeria in the case of B. N. v Interstella Communication Ltd. (2018) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1618) 294, SC. At page 344- 345, paras. H – A has laid down the principle underlying securing the Attorney-General of the Federation’s consent as prescribed in section 84 of the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act, Cap. S16 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004, is to avoid embarrassment on the Attorney-General of the Federation of not having the prior knowledge that funds earmarked for some purposes have been diverted in satisfaction of a judgment debt, which the government may not know anything about, hence, the reason for seeking the consent of the Attorney-General of the Federation before initiating this garnishee proceedings so that the attachment of the judgment debt against the Judgment debtor and or against the Federation account of the Federal Government of the Federal Republic of Nigeria in the custody of the Garnishee would be to his i.e. the Attorney-General of the Federation’s knowledge and or awareness.

Also, it is our humble submission that the intention of the legislature regarding section 84(1) of the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act (supra) as regard the requirement for ‘consent’ of the Attorney-General of the Federation does not enable and or empower the Attorney-Geeneral of the Federation to misuse, abuse and or defeat the cause of justice and or use such power to create a clog in the enforcement and or enjoyment of the fruits of judgment held in favour of the Judgment Creditor by this Honourable Court. This Honourable Court is urged to so hold.

We also humbly submit that the requirements of ‘consent’ in section 84(1) of the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act is not superior to the inherent and or constitutional powers of this Honourable Court conferred on this Court in section 6(6)(a) and (b) and 287 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) to wade in where necessary (as in this present suit) to grant an Order Absolute to the Judgment Creditor to enjoy the fruits of the Judgment held in his favour against the Judgment debtor by this Honourable Court. This Honourable Court is urged to so hold.

We therefore humbly submit that the Attorney-General of the Federation having failed and or refused to communicate his consent or refusal and so, having regards to paragraph 4 of the said letter i.e. Exhibit C, the Attorney-General of the Federation’s refusal to communicate his consent is deemed as consent for the purpose of this garnishee proceedings. This Honourable Court is urged to so hold.

Finally, My Lord, we humbly submit that that this Honourable Court has the power(s) to grant this application. This Honourable Court is urged to so hold.

CONCLUSION:
- My Lord, the Applicant/Judgement Creditor/Garnishor urges and pray this Honourable Court to grant this application, in the interest of justice.

We are very grateful, My Lord.

Dated this ………………………………… day of …………………………………., 2023.

…………………………………………………………

Hameed Ajibola Jimoh Esq.

(Judgement Creditor’s/Applicant’s/Garnishor’s Counsel)

Address for Service: THE VICEGERENT LEGAL CONSULT, No. 1, Salem Church Close, Off Dabban Street, Sabon-Geri Junction, Opp. ECWA Good News Church, Bwari, FCT-Abuja.

Phone No: 08168292549, 08085567456. Email: [email protected], [email protected]. SUPREME COURT’S ENROLLMENT NUMBER OF APPLICANT’S COUNSEL: SCN094209.’.

Furthermore, in case the CBN challenges the Garnishee Order Absolute where made by the High Court or the Magistrate or Trial Court, I have supplied the following legal arguments which I had made as a Respondent in an appeal filed by the CBN against the Ruling of the Federal High Court of Nigeria, Abuja, making the Order Nisi earlier granted by the Court in favour of my Client absolute, perhaps the legal arguments might be useful to the reader for the purpose of Garnishee proceedings against the Government in the interest of justice.

‘ISSUE FOR DETERMINATION:

Whether the decision of the lower Court was wrongly decided by the Honourable lower Court in favour of the 1^st Respondent (i.e. the Judgment Creditor/Garnishor at the lower Court) to the effects that the consent of the Attorney-General of the Federation was not required to be obtained by the 1^st Respondent (i.e. the Judgment Creditor/Garnishor) before instituting the Garnishee proceedings in the Honourable lower Court considering the facts of the funds to be garnished in the Garnishee’s custody and the facts that the status of the Garnishee pursuant to Section 84(1) of the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act, Cap S6, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004, is not that of a public officer and relying on the decision of the Supreme Court of Nigeria in the case of C.B.N. V Interstella Comm. Ltd. (2018)7 NWLR (pt. 1618)294 SC, to warrant this Honourable Court to set aside the said decision of the lower Court as sought by the Appellant in this Appeal?

2.0. LEGAL ARGUMENTS

My Lords, we humbly submit that the decision of the lower Court was not wrongly decided by the Honourable lower Court in favour of the 1^st Respondent (i.e. the Judgment Creditor/Garnishor at the lower Court) to the effects that the consent of the Attorney-General of the Federation was not required to be obtained by the 1^st Respondent (i.e. the Judgment Creditor/Garnishor) before instituting the Garnishee proceedings in the Honourable lower Court considering the facts of the funds to be garnished in the Garnishee’s custody and the facts that the status of the Garnishee pursuant to Section 84(1) of the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act, Cap S6, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004, is not that of a public officer and relying on the decision of the Supreme Court of Nigeria in the case of C.B.N. V Interstella Comm. Ltd. (2018)7 NWLR (pt. 1618)294 SC, therefore, there the decision does not warrant this Honourable Court to set aside the said decision of the lower Court as sought by the Appellant in this Appeal. This Honourable Court is urged to so hold and affirm the decision of the lower Court.

My Lords, the decision of the lower Court (i.e. in the Order Absolute made on the 22^nd day of November, 2021) is ably captioned at pages 92 to 93 of the Records of this Appeal wherein the lower Court held thus

‘In the light of the aforementioned provisions, the apex court concluded that, the Garnishee (CBN) does not stand as a public officer in that situation and as such the need to seek and obtain consent of the Attorney-General of the Federation before money held by the Garnishee (CBN) can be attached does not arise.

Therefore, the above decision of the Supreme Court which appears to be the current law on the issue and also binding on both the Court of Appeal and this Honourable Court, has settled the issue that, the Garnishee (CBN) is not a public officer in relation to or in the context of section 84 of the SCPA, but acts as banker to the Federal Government, including the judgment debtor (National Drug Law Enforcement Agency) as an agency of the Federal Government, therefore, the consent of the Attorney-General of the Federation is not necessary before the Judgment Creditor/ Garnishor/ Respondent could attach the Judgment sum held by in the Garnishee.

I therefore, agree with the submissions of the learned counsel for the Judgment Creditor/Garnishor/Respondent, that the consent of the Attorney-General of the Federation is not necessary in the context of this case before the Judgment Debtor’s funds with the Garnishee can be attached and I so hold.

Based on the foregoing, I hold that, this Honourable Court possessed and utilized the requisite jurisdiction in granting the Order Nisi against the Garnishee.

In the circumstance and in the larger interest, there is nothing barring this Honourable Court from making the Order Nisi absolute as urged by the Judgment Creditor/Garnishor/ Respondent. Accordingly, the Order Nisi made by this Honourable Court on the 7^th December, 2020, is hereby made absolute’.

My Lords, it is the 1^st Respondent’s humble submission that decision of the lower as captioned in the above paragraph was correct and was not wrongly decided by the learned Honourable Court to the effects that the consent of the Attorney-General of the Federation was not required to be obtained by the 1^st Respondent (i.e. the Judgment Creditor/Garnishor) before instituting the Garnishee proceedings in the Honourable lower Court considering the facts of the funds to be garnished in the Garnishee’s custody and the facts that the status of the Garnishee pursuant to Section 84(1) of the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act, Cap S6, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004-herein after referred to as the SCPA-, is not that of a public officer and relying on the decision of the Supreme Court of Nigeria in the case of C.B.N. V Interstella Comm. Ltd. (2018)7 NWLR (pt. 1618)294 SC, and therefore the decision does not warrant this Honourable Court to set aside the said decision of the lower Court as sought by the Appellant in this Appeal. Hence, it is our humble submission that the Honourable lower Court did utilize its jurisdiction validly in making the Order Nisi on the 7^th day of October, 2021, and the subsequent Order Absolute made by the lower Court on the 22^nd day of November, 2021 and same were not a nullity. This Honourable Court is urged to so hold and affirm the decision of the lower Court.

My Lords, we humbly submit that the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act-herein after referred to as the SCPA-, which entered into force on 1st June 1945 as an ordinance of the Colonial Administration, certainly did not contemplate (nor could it have contemplated) the Treasury Single Account (TSA) policy and the attendant consolidation of all inflows (payments and receipts) from all agencies of government (including that of the 2^nd Respondent i.e. National Drug Law Enforcement Agency) into a single account or a set of linked accounts at the Appellant (i.e. the Central Bank of Nigeria), which makes the Appellant (Central Bank of Nigeria) a necessary party in the deluge of garnishee proceedings filed in the wake of the Treasury Single Account policy. My Lords, we humbly submit that the definition of “public officer” in s. 18 of the Interpretation Act clearly excludes governmental bodies and institutions, including the Appellant (Central Bank of Nigeria); and the decision of the Supreme Court in CBN v Interstella Communications Ltd (supra) is that the CBN which acts as a Banker to the Federal Government with respect to government funds in its custody pursuant to ss. 2(e) and 36 of the Central Bank of Nigeria Act “does not stand as a public officer in this situation”, and no necessity arises to seek the consent of the Attorney-General as a precondition for initiating garnishee proceedings against the Appellant in this Appeal.

My Noble Lords, Section 84 of the (1) of the SCPA provides thus

(1) Where money liable to be attached by garnishee proceedings is in the custody or under the control of a public officer in his official capacity or in custodia legis, the order nisi shall not be made under the provisions of the last preceding section unless consent to such attachment is first obtained from the appropriate officer in the case of money in the custody or control of a public officer or of the court in the case of money in custodia legis, as the case may be.

(2) In such cases the order of notice must be served on such public officer or on the registrar of the court, as the case may be.

(3) In this section, “appropriate officer” means —

(a) in relation to money which is in the custody of a public officer who holds a public office in the public service of the Federation, the Attorney-General of the Federation;

(b) in relation to money which is in the custody of a public officer who holds a public office in the public service of the State, the Attorney-General of the State.

My Lords, Section 18(1) of the Interpretation Act Cap I23 LFN 2004 defines “public officer” as “a member of the public service of the Federation within the meaning of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 or of the public service of a State”. Given the definition of “public service of the Federation” in section 318(1) of the 1999 Constitution-herein after referred to as the Constitution-, being a member of the public service of the Federation can only mean being a staff in the service of the Federation in any capacity including being a staff of any of the bodies enumerated above. The Appellant (Central Bank of Nigeria) is an agency of the Federal Government established by an Act of the National Assembly i.e. the Central Bank of Nigeria Act. We therefore humbly submit that it is the Appellant’s (Central Bank of Nigeria’s) staff that qualify as members of the public service of the Federation, not the CBN itself as an institution or agency. We humbly refer to the recent case of Ecobank Nig. Plc v. Admiral Environmental Care Ltd & ors [2021] LPELR-56130(CA) per Affen, JCA. This Honourable Court is urged to so hold.

Furthermore My Lord, we wish to state that as opposed to the Appellant’s arguments and submissions in its Appellant’s Brief of Arguments especially at paragraphs: 2. 02., 2. 03., 2. 06, 2. 07., 2. 10., 2. 14., 2. 16., 2. 17., 2. 18., 2. 19., 4. 22 (though wrongly paragraphed by the Appellant as ‘paragraph 4.22.’ rather than to be numbered as paragraph 3.22 and above), 4. 24., 4. 25., and 4. 31., that the Appellant (Central Bank of Nigeria i.e. the Garnishee), has been interpreted to be a public officer, and that the consent of the Attorney-General of the Federation must be sought and obtained before the attachment of any money in the custody of the Central Bank of Nigeria, and all the cases relied upon by the Applicant in its written address, the Supreme Court of Nigeria has held in the most recent case on Garnishee Proceedings in the case of C.B.N. V Interstella Comm. Ltd. (supra) specifically at page 346, paragraphs: D-H, Ogunbiyi J.S.C. held thus

‘…. In other words and as rightly argued by 1^st and 2^nd respondents’ counsel, the appellant is not a public officer in the context of section 84 SCPA where regard is had to the history of this appeal. Section 84 has been reproduced earlier in the course of this judgment.

It is apparent herein, on the facts of this case that the CBN acts as a banker to the Federal Government Funds with respect to government funds in its custody.

Section 2(e) of the CBN Act provide thus:

‘Act as a banker and provide economic and financial advice to the Federal Government’

Section 36 of the CBN Act also provides:-

‘the bank shall receive and disburse Federal government money’s and keep accounts thereof’.

The appellant does not stand as public officer in this situation. Therefore, it follows that the need to seek the consent of the Attorney-General of the Federation does not arise’. (Underling is that of the 1^st Respondent for emphasis). We further refer this Honourable Court to page 347, paragraph A-B of the C.B.N. V Interstella Ltd. (supra).

My Lords, to the best of our knowledge, the Appellant (the Central Bank of Nigeria- herein after referred to as CBN- i.e. Garnishee) had issued a circular directing all Deposit Money Banks (DMBs) to implement the Remita e-Collection Platform. The Remita e-Collection is a technology platform deployed by the Federal Government to support the collection and remittance of all government revenue to a Consolidated Account domiciled with the CBN pursuant to the provisions of section 80 (1) of the Constitution provides that ‘All revenues, or other moneys raised or received by the Federation (not being revenues or other moneys payable under this Constitution or any Act of the National Assembly into any other public fund of the Federation established for a specific purpose) shall be paid into and form one Consolidated Revenue Fund of the Federation’.

My Lords, we humbly submit that as a result of this Treasury Single Account-herein after referred to as TSA- policy of the Federal Government, the 2^nd Respondent (i.e. the Judgment Debtor i.e. NATIONAL DRUG LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY- even though was mistakenly named as ‘Nigeria Drug Law Enforcement Agency’ by the Appellant in this Appeal), has all its accounts with the CBN i.e. Garnishee, and by the provisions of the section 84(1) of the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act and the Supreme Court’s decision in the case of C.B.N. V Interstella Comm. Ltd. (supra) which is to the effect that the Central Bank of Nigeria is not a public officer in relation to its relationship with the Federal Government and its account, and rather acts as a banker to the Federal Government, consent of the Attorney-General of the Federation is not required before the 2^nd Respondent’s account and or monies with the CBN i.e. Garnishee can be attached by the 1^st Respondent (Judgment Creditor). This Honourable Court is urged to so hold.

Furthermore, My Lords, we humbly submit that the decision of the Supreme Court in B.N. v Interstella’s case (supra) in this respect binds this Honourable Court on the principles of stare decisis. We rely on the case of: M. O. KANU, SONS & COMPANY LTD v. NZERIBE & ANOR (2014) LPELR-22839(CA), held thus

“It is beyond peradventure that, by the doctrine of stare decisis every court below is bound to follow the decision of the Supreme Court and no Court has discretion to choose whether to follow the decision of the Supreme Court or not. We humbly also refer Your Lordships to the following cases: Amaechi v. INEC (2008) 10 WRN 1 at 186; Dalhatu v. Turaki (2003) 42 WRN 15 at 30.” Also, the case of Dalhatu Vs. Turaki (2003) 15 NWLR Pt 310 at 336 Katsina Alu J.S.C. (as he then was) and the case of Amadi v. INEC (2008) (Supra) at 186, his Lordship Onnoghen, J.S.C.

In our respectful submission My Lords, the fact of the Federal Government of Nigeria or its agency not being a Party to an action does not and should not affect the Banker-Customer relationship between them, in so far as the Appellant (Central Bank of Nigeria) is in custody of their funds.

Furthermore, My Lords, we humbly submit that fortunately, in recent decisions of this Honourable Court, this Honourable Court had held in a plethoral of cases touching on the decisions of the CBN v. Interstella Communications Ltd & ors (supra) the decisions which favour our submissions made in this our (1^st Respondent’s) Briefs of Arguments as we shall canvass as below.

My Lords, in the case of Ecobank Nig. Plc v. Admiral Environmental Care Ltd & ors [2021] LPELR-56130(CA) per Affen, JCA, held as follows:

…It cannot escape notice that S. 84 (3) SCPA defines “appropriate officer” but not the public officer who has custody or control of the money sought to be attached by means of garnishee proceedings. However, it seems to me that even without seeking guidance from anywhere else, the chapeau of S. 84 of the SCPA (reproduced above) which talks about money in the custody or under the control of a public officer “in HIS official capacity” clearly suggests that the reference is to a human male person, which in legal parlance includes the feminine gender, but not an artificial entity or institution. See S. 14(a) of the Interpretation Act, Cap. I23 L.F.N. 2004 to the effect that “words importing the masculine gender include females”. What is more, S. 84(3)(a) and (b) which refers to money which is in the custody of a public officer who holds a public office in the public service of the Federation or of a State equally suggests that the reference is to ‘the holder of a public office’ as distinct from the public office or institution in which he/she holds the office. To put matters beyond cavil, the Interpretation Act which guides the interpretation of the Constitution [see S. 318(4) of the 1999 Constitution] as well as all enactments except insofar as the contrary intention appears [see S. 1 of the Interpretation Act)] defines ‘public officer’ in S. 18(1) thereof as “a member of the public service of the Federation within the meaning of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 or of the public service of a State”…It seems to me therefore that the meaning of the term public officer is not in any doubt; it refers to a human person occupying or functioning in a public office or governmental institution in which his/her services are engaged, but not the office or institution itself.

Furthermore, in the case of CBN v. Tripple C. Acquisition Ltd & ors [2022] LPELR-57441(CA) decided on 8 April 2022 per Peter Olabisi Ige, JCA:

…The role of a garnishee in any garnishee proceeding is delimited. As rightly argued by the counsel for the 1st and 2nd respondents, it is not envisaged that after a judgment creditor has gone through the rigours to establish his rights through the legal system, that the garnishee, who is asked to surrender the judgment debtor’s money in its possession should engage the judgment creditor in another bout of legal battle…

…I am of the firm view that Section 84 of the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act has no application to the Garnishee proceedings leading to the Garnishee Order absolute made on 6th February, 2017 and even if it is applicable (a fact not conceded) the 1st Respondent has fulfilled all conditions precedent before the institution of the Garnishee proceedings.

In the same vein, My Noble Lords, in the case of CBN v. NX2 Merchant & Nigeria Ltd & ors [2022] LPELR-57490(CA) decided on 29 April 2022 per Haruna Simon Tsammani, JCA:

…The Appellant, I reiterate, is therefore, not a public officer within the context of Section 84 of the Sheriff and Civil Process Act, though it acts as Banker to the Federal Government Funds in its custody. See Sections 2(e) and 36 of the CBN Act. See also, Central Bank of Nigeria v. Access Bank Plc. & Ors. (2022) LPELR 570(CA). I therefore hold that, the Appellant, not being a public officer, the need to seek consent of the Attorney General of the Federation did not arise. It therefore means that, the Application for such consent, made by the 1st Respondent’s solicitor, was done in error, or at best is an excess baggage. In other words, the consent of the Attorney-General of the Federation was not required before the initiation of the garnishee proceedings, the subject of this appeal.

Also, in the case of CBN v. Magpie Trading Tfze & ors [2022] LPELR-57531(CA) decided on 29 April 2022 per Haruna Simon Tsammani, JCA:

…I agree with learned counsel for the 1st Respondent that the Appellant, is not a public officer within the context of Section 84 of the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act. That being so, the consent of the Attorney-General of the Federation was not required before the initiation of the garnishee proceedings, the subject of this appeal.

Also, in the case of CBN v. Kruggerbrent & Co. Nig. Ltd & ors [2022] LPELR-57571(CA) decided on 29 April 2022 per Haruna Simon Tsammani, JCA, held thus:

The Appellant, I reiterate, is therefore, not a public officer within the context of Section 84 of the Sheriff and Civil Process Act, though it acts as Banker to the Federal Government Funds in its custody. See Sections 2(e) and 36 of the CBN Act. See also, Central Bank of Nigeria v. Access Bank Plc. & Ors. (2022) LPELR-57017(CA). I therefore hold that, the Appellant, not being a public officer, the need to seek consent of the Attorney General of the Federation did not arise. It therefore means that, the Application for such consent, made by the 1st Respondent’s solicitor, was done in error, or at best is an excess baggage. In other words, the consent of the Attorney-General of the Federation was not required before the initiation of the garnishee proceedings, the subject of this appeal. We also humbly rely on the case of CBN v. Elder Abel Ezeanya & ors [2022] LPELR-57598(CA) decided on 9 May 2022 per Adebola Samuel Bola, JCA.

Also, in the case of Access Bank Plc v. Mr Ugochukwu Gerald Igwe & anor [2022] LPELR-57765(CA) decided on 2 June 2022 per Adebola Samuel Bola, JCA held thus:

…it is the considered view of this Court that the decision of the Supreme Court in CBN V. Interstella Communication Ltd (2018) 7 NWLR (1618) 294 has put an end to the conflicting decisions and controversies as to whether the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) is a public officer within the meaning of Section 84(1) of the Sheriffs and Civil Processes Act or not.

Arising from the foregoing, I hold that the Central Bank of Nigeria is not a public officer within the intendment of the provision of Section 84(1) of the Sheriffs and Civil Processes Act. In the light of this, it is held that the consent of the Attorney General of the Federation was not required before the commencement of the garnishee proceeding. It is therefore not necessary for the consent of the Attorney General of the Federation be sought and obtained before the lower Court could grant the Garnishee Order Nisi and eventually Garnishee Order Absolute. The lower Court has the jurisdiction to entertain garnishee proceeding for the enforcement of Judgment in which the Central Bank is a custodian of the fund sought to be garnisheed to satisfy the Judgment debt.’.

My Noble Lords, we wish to also relate to this Honourable Court that the issue of delay tactics undertaken by the Federal Government of Nigeria (by the Attorney-General), the government’s agencies and the Appellant (CBN) to deny a judgment creditor (just like the 1^st Respondent in this Appeal) the fruits of his judgment is well known in garnishee proceedings after a Court of law has given judgment in favour of the judgment creditor to such an extent that a number of judgements have remained unenforced by the judgment creditors entitled to the enforcement of such judgment. The tool used for such delay by the Federal government of Nigeria, its agencies (such as the 2^nd Respondent) and the Appellant (CBN) is the provisions of section 84 of the SCPA, which they usually erroneously argue requires ‘consent’ of the Attorney-General of the Federation before the money in custody of a public officer can be garnisheed (after a court of law has finally decided the case against the government or any of its agencies and thereby make the Judgment Creditor to expend further funds in prosecuting an appeal even up to the Supreme Court of Nigeria, just as the Appellant has done in this Appeal (for and on behalf of the 2^nd Respondent thereby fighting the battle of the 2^nd Respondent) over the token sum of Five Hundred Thousand Naira (N500,000.00) only awarded against the 2^nd Respondent by the lower!). These provisions of section 84 of the SCPA have been unjustly, inequitably and unfairly abused by the government and its agencies as well as the Appellant (CBN) to pay judgment sum/judgment debt and rather engage the Judgment Creditor in another battle in litigation even up to the Supreme Court of Nigeria for years if not even over ten (10) years! Surprisingly My Lords, the Judgment sum sought to enforce by the 1^st Respondent at the lower court against which the Appellant has appealed to this Honourable Court with public funds, arising from a fundamental rights suit held in his favour by the lower court was just a token sum of Five Hundred Thousand Naira (N500,000.00) only. The Judgment in the fundamental rights suit is contained at pages: 7 to 17 of the records of this Appeal. Funnily, My Lords, whereas, discriminatorily, where the government or any of its agencies have monetary judgment against a private citizen, the government would be free to apply section 83 of the SCPA against the said private person whereas the said private person cannot use section 83 of the SCPA against the government! I do not see how just the said section 84 of the SCPA is to democratic Nigerians in this way!

My Lords, it is important for us to note to this Honourable Court that the Appellant has not contented or disputed at both the lower Court and this Court either that it (the Appellant) has no money or account owned by the 2^nd Respondent in its custody nor did the Appellant state that whatever money the 2^nd Respondent has in its custody is insufficient to satisfy the judgment debt.

My Lords, we humbly submit that it is not the duty of the Appellant (Garnishee) to play the side of the Judgment Debtor and to hoard the monies of the Judgment Debtor in its custody by putting up unnecessary litigation to defeat the interest of justice against the 1^st Respondent/Judgment Creditor. We humbly rely on the case of CENTRAL BANK OF NIGERIA vs. OCHIFE & ORS. (2020) LCN/14879(CA) where this Honourable Court Per ADAH, JCA, held as follows:

‘At this point, let me clearly state that garnishee proceeding is that which intends to achieve the result of enforcing judgment of the trial Court by paying the judgment debt ordered by the trial Court to the judgment creditor. The law which is the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act, had laid out the mode of enforcing the judgment of the trial Court, the mode of enforcement through garnishee proceeding appears to be more effective and potent for monetary judgment debts. In the case of CBN v. Interstella Communications Ltd. & Ors. (2018) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1618) 294, 350, Ogunyibi, JSC, explained the role of a garnishee proceedings as follows: “The role of Garnishee in any Garnishee proceeding is delimited. As rightly argued by the counsel for the 1st and 2nd respondents, it is not envisaged that after a judgment creditor has gone through the rigors to establish his right through the legal system, that the garnishee, who is asked to surrender the judgment debtor’s money in its possession should engage the judgment creditor in another bout of legal battle. See Order Vlll Part II of the Judgments (Enforcement) Rules. Basically, the restrictive role and legal duty of a garnishee in the judgment enforcement proceeding is to conscientiously and truthfully appear before the Court in order to disclose the Judgment Debtor’s state of account in its custody. It is no wonder therefore that the lower Court while quoting the Court of Appeal case of Oceanic Bank Plc v. Oladepo & Anor. (2012) LPELR–19670 held the view that it is not the business of a Garnishee to undertake to play the role of an advocate for a judgment debtor by trying to shield and protect the money of the judgment debtor… By the rule of jurisprudence, no justice will be done to a garnishee, neither will it be denied any legal right when made to give up the judgment debtor’s money in its custody. It is also inequitable for a garnishee to continue to latch on to the money that does not belong to it when the judgment debtor has conceded the judgment.”

In the instant case, it is not on record that the judgment creditor or judgment debtor are fighting the judgment debt on appeal. Where the judgment debtor does not fight the judgment on appeal, the garnishee whose role is only to keep the money of the appellant cannot raise issues in the enforcement to challenge the enforcement procedure adopted by the judgment creditor. In that circumstance it is not the business of the garnishee to plead that the trial Court has no jurisdiction because the fiat of the Attorney General was not obtained before the enforcement of the judgment given against a judgment debtor. The position of the law is as rendered by the Supreme Court in Gwede v. Delta State House of Assembly & Anor. (2019) LPELR–47441 (SC). The dictum of Okoro, JSC, is as follows: “A few words on garnishee proceedings. A garnishee proceeding is usually commenced by an ex-parte application made to the Court having jurisdiction to hear the matter by the judgment creditor and the orders of the Court usually come in two steps. The first is a garnishee order NISI. Simply, NISI is a Norman – French word which means “unless”. It is therefore an order made, at that stage that the sum covered by the application be paid in to Court or to the judgment creditor within a stated time unless there is sufficient reason given by the party on whom the order is directed why the ordered should be made. Such reasons could be that he does not hold any money belonging to the judgment debtor or that such money belonging to the judgment debtor in his possession is a subject of litigation or has been assigned to a third party or any other legal and reasonable excuse. If no sufficient reason is given, the garnishee order is then made absolute and that ends the matter in that the party against whom the order absolute is made liable to pay the amount specified in the order to the judgment creditor. The Court then becomes functus officio as far as that matter is concerned in that the judge who decided the matter is precluded from again considering the matter even if new evidence or argument are presented to him. See Union Bank of Nigeria Plc v. Boney Marcus Industries Ltd. & Ors. (2005) 13 NWLR (Pt. 943) 654; Choice Investments Ltd. v. Jeromnimon (Midland Bank Ltd. Garnishee) (1981) 1 All ER 225 at 328; Guarantee Trust Bank Plc v. Innoson Nig. (2017) LPELR–42368 (SC).”

The appellant in this appeal has no justifiable reason to contest the order of the lower Court. This appeal has again shown the modern trend of a garnishee joining the contest of the substantive litigants to fight a proxy war for the judgment debtor. This is no longer to be encouraged or tolerated in a garnishee proceeding.

From the foregoing consideration therefore, this Court has not found any reason to void the order absolute as raised by the lower Court. This appeal therefore lacks merit. The appeal is hereby dismissed.’.

Finally, therefore, My Lords, we humbly submit that the decision of the lower Court was not wrongly decided by the Honourable lower Court in favour of the 1^st Respondent (i.e. the Judgment Creditor/Garnishor at the lower Court) to the effects that the consent of the Attorney-General of the Federation was not required to be obtained by the 1^st Respondent (i.e. the Judgment Creditor/Garnishor) before instituting the Garnishee proceedings in the Honourable lower Court considering the facts of the funds to be garnished in the Garnishee’s custody and the facts that the status of the Garnishee pursuant to Section 84(1) of the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act, Cap S6, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004, is not that of a public officer and relying on the decision of the Supreme Court of Nigeria in the case of B.N. V Interstella Comm. Ltd. (2018)7 NWLR (pt. 1618)294 SC, and therefore, the said decision does not warrant this Honourable Court to set aside the said decision of the lower Court as sought by the Appellant in this Appeal. This Honourable Court is urged to so hold and affirm the decision of the lower Court, in the interest of justice to allow the Judgment Creditor who was a victim of violation of his fundamental rights in the hands of the 2^nd Respondent to enjoy the fruits of the Judgment held in his favour by the lower Court (the Court and of course, this Honourable Court being the last hope of the common man).’.

Finally, I wish to state that I have made ‘blank spaces’ in the precedents recommended in this paper so as not to make it a draft. It is therefore my great hope that the reader of this paper would find this paper of immense benefits on the subject matter of the topic. I also wish and hope that the reader would use this paper as required and necessary for his case in the interest of justice.

I wish myself and the reader best of luck!

Email: [email protected]