Download PDF
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height: normal"><b><u><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">Representation:<o:p></o:p></span></u></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">J. T. U. Nnodum SAN with him N. R. Chibuisi (Mrs.), J. T. U. Nnodum (Jnr.), and C. E. Nnodum Esq. for the Judgment Creditors/Claimants/Applicants<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">S. E. Ibechem Esq, Deputy Director Civil Litigation, Imo State Ministry of Justice, for the 1<sup>st</sup> & 2<sup>nd</sup> Judgment Creditors/Defendants/Applicants<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">L. E. Onyeananam (Mrs.), Assistant Chief State Counsel, for the 4<sup>th</sup> Judgment Creditor/Defendant/Applicant<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">L. C. Ugorji for the 1<sup>st</sup> Garnishee<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">J. M. E. Onyeanakazi for the 2<sup>nd</sup> Garnishee</span><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height: normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt; text-align:center;line-height:normal"><b><u><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">RULING<o:p></o:p></span></u></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">This ruling is predicated on several applications filed before this Court by parties. <b>The 1<sup>st</sup> application is a Motion on Notice dated 20<sup>th</sup> August 2015 and filed on 24<sup>th</sup> August 2015</b> and brought pursuant to Order 30 Rule 1 of the National Industrial Court Rules 2007, and under the inherent jurisdiction of this Honourable Court seeking for the following orders:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;line-height:normal; mso-list:l4 level1 lfo2"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-fareast-font-family: "Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">1.<span style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">An Order staying execution and or enforcement of the judgment/orders of this Honourable Court had and delivered in the above suit on the 1<sup>st</sup> day of July, 2015 pending the determination of the appeal filed by the 1<sup>st</sup> and 2<sup>nd</sup> Defendants/Applicants against the said judgment/orders.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">Further or in the alternative;<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in; line-height:normal;mso-list:l4 level1 lfo2"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-fareast-font-family: "Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">2.<span style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">An order of injunction for the preservation of the subject matter and or preservation of the status quo by the parties pending the determination of the appeal filed by the 1<sup>st</sup> and 2<sup>nd</sup> Defendants/Applicants against the said judgement/orders of the Court made on the 1<sup>st</sup> day of July 2015 in the above suit.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;line-height:normal; mso-list:l4 level1 lfo2"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-fareast-font-family: "Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">3.<span style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">And for such further Order(s) as the Honourable Court may in the circumstances deem fit to make.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">The grounds upon which this motion is brought are as follows:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in; line-height:normal;mso-list:l10 level1 lfo3"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-fareast-font-family: "Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">a.<span style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">That the 1<sup>st</sup> and 2<sup>nd</sup> Defendants being dissatisfied with the said judgement/orders of 1/7/2015 wherein the Defendants among others were ordered to calculate and pay to the Claimants their salaries and allowance due to them for the months of June 2012 to February, 2015 filed on 12/8/2015 a Notice of Appeal dated 4/8/2015 against the said judgment/orders<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in; line-height:normal;mso-list:l10 level1 lfo3"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-fareast-font-family: "Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">b.<span style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">The Notice of Appeal of the Defendants disclosed special and exceptional circumstances bordering on denial of fair hearing.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in; line-height:normal;mso-list:l10 level1 lfo3"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-fareast-font-family: "Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">c.<span style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">The Claimants, who are full-time political appointees, have been out of work since June 2012 will not be able to refund the judgement sum if paid to them and the appeal succeeds. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in; line-height:normal;mso-list:l10 level1 lfo3"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-fareast-font-family: "Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">d.<span style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">The appeal will be rendered nugatory if this application for stay of execution is not granted and the appeal succeeds.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in; line-height:normal;mso-list:l10 level1 lfo3"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-fareast-font-family: "Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">e.<span style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">The Appellants/Applicants would suffer irreparable damages if the judgment/orders are not stayed and the appeal succeeds.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in; line-height:normal;mso-list:l10 level1 lfo3"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-fareast-font-family: "Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">f.<span style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">The 1<sup>st</sup> and 2<sup>nd</sup> Defendants/Appellants/ Applicants shall at the hearing of the application rely on the judgement/Orders of this Court, the Notice and grounds of Appeal dated 4/8/2015 and filed in the Registry of this Court on 12/8/2015.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">This application is supported by a seven (7) paragraph affidavit deposed to by one Bruno Nwachukwu, a Litigation officer in the Ministry of Justice, Owerri Imo State. In the accompanying written address, Counsel to the 1<sup>st</sup> and 2<sup>nd</sup> Defendants raised one issue for determination:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:.5in; line-height:normal"><b><i><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">Whether Defendants/Applicants are entitled to the orders sought.<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family: "Comic Sans MS""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">In arguing this issue Counsel submitted that the Defendants/Applicants are entitled to the orders sought and it is trite law that an order of injunction pending appeal is a preservative order to maintain the status quo while the litigation is on: Counsel referred the Court to the case of <b>Emerash vs. Chiekwe (1996) 7 NWLR (Pt. 462) 536; Sodeinde vs. Registered Trustees of the Ahmadiya Movement in Islam (1980) 1-2 SC 163</b>, wherein the apex Court held as follows: <b><i><o:p></o:p></i></b></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:85.0pt;margin-bottom: 0in;margin-left:1.0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;line-height: normal"><b><i><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">“The purpose of the order being to maintain the status quo and protect the res from being destroy while the litigation has continued on appeal”.<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:85.0pt;margin-bottom: 0in;margin-left:1.0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;line-height: normal"><b><i><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS""> </span></i></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">Counsel further submitted that for application for stay of execution to succeed, the Applicant is required to show the following:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in; line-height:normal;mso-list:l5 level1 lfo4"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-fareast-font-family: "Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">a.<span style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">That there is a valid and subsisting appeal against the judgement/order sought to be stayed. <b>Mobil Oil (Nig.) Ltd vs. Agadiagho (1988) 3 NWLR (Pt. 77) 383 at 379</b>.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in; line-height:normal;mso-list:l5 level1 lfo4"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-fareast-font-family: "Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">b.<span style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">That there is a special or exceptional circumstances warranting granting the application. <b>Nwabueze vs. Nwosu (1988) 4 NWLR (Pt. 88) 252</b>.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;line-height:normal; mso-list:l5 level1 lfo4"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-fareast-font-family: "Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">c.<span style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">It is right to put matters on status quo or preserve the res so as not to render the appeal nugatory. <b>Onuzulike vs. Commissioner for Special Duties (1990) 7 NWLR (Pt. 161) 252</b>.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">Counsel also submitted that it is the law that stay of execution will be granted where it is shown that the Respondents/Claimant will not be able to refund the judgment debt in the event that the appeal succeeds; that since the Claimants are political appointees and have been out of job since 2012, if the judgment sum if paid to them they will not be able to refund same if the appeal succeeds.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family: "Comic Sans MS""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">Counsel urged the Court to hold that the Defendants/Applicants have sufficiently made out a case to merit the grant of stay of execution in the interest of justice as the Claimants/Respondents have nothing to lose.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family: "Comic Sans MS""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">In reaction to the 1<sup>st</sup> and 2<sup>nd</sup> Defendants/Judgment Creditors’ motion for stay of execution, learned Senior Counsel to the Claimant replied orally on points of law and submitted that this application which was brought in bad faith was not served on the Judgment Creditors. Even the Notice of Appeal was not served on them. Counsel further submitted that motion for stay of execution is a different set of proceedings from garnishee proceedings, and that the processes ought to have been served on the parties directly. Counsel cited <b>Purification Techniques vs. Attorney General of Lagos (2004) 9 NWLR (Pt. 879) Pg. 665 at para 678-679, Denton West vs. Momah (2008) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1083) Pg. 418 at 447 para A-B.</b><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family: "Comic Sans MS""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">Counsel also submitted that garnishee proceedings are distinct from filing an appeal. See <b>Sokoto State Government vs. Kamdax (2004) 9 NWLR (Pt. 878) Pg. 345 at 380</b>. It is Counsel’s submission that the Defendants/Applicants have not even taken any step as required by law to ensure that the so called appeal is settled, compiled and transmitted to the Court of Appeal, more than 1<sup>1</sup>/<sub>2 </sub>years after delivery of the judgment, contrary to the provisions of Order 8 Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules 2011. Counsel stated that this is evidence of malafide, as they have gone to sleep. Finally Counsel urged the Court to strike out the application or on the other hand to dismiss it for lacking merit.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family: "Comic Sans MS""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><b><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">The 2<sup>nd</sup> application is a Motion on Notice dated 9<sup>th</sup> May 2016 but filed on the 10<sup>th</sup> May 2016</span></b><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS""> and brought pursuant to Section 6 (6) of the 1999 constitution as amended and under the inherent jurisdiction of the Honourable Court wherein the Defendants/Applicant prayed the Court for the following:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in; line-height:normal;mso-list:l12 level1 lfo5"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-fareast-font-family: "Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">1.<span style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">An Order setting aside the Order Nisi made by this Honourable Court on the 13<sup>th</sup> day of April 2016 same having been made on erroneous facts.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in; line-height:normal;mso-list:l12 level1 lfo5"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-fareast-font-family: "Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">2.<span style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">An Order staying further proceedings i.e. garnishee proceedings of the Honourable Court pending the final determination of the Appeal filed by the Appellant /Applicants against the judgment of this Court delivered on the 1<sup>st</sup> of July 2015, same having been commenced prematurely.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;line-height:normal; mso-list:l12 level1 lfo5"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-fareast-font-family: "Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">3.<span style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">And for such further Order(s) as the Honourable Court may deem to make in the circumstance.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">The grounds upon which the application is sought are: <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in; line-height:normal;mso-list:l6 level1 lfo6"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-fareast-font-family: "Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">a.<span style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">The Claimants/Judgment Creditors suppressed and misrepresented facts in their exparte application upon which the Order Nisi of 13/4/2016 was made.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in; line-height:normal;mso-list:l6 level1 lfo6"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-fareast-font-family: "Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">b.<span style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">The application for the Order Nisi was brought prematurely and therefore incompetent.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in; line-height:normal;mso-list:l6 level1 lfo6"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-fareast-font-family: "Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">c.<span style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">The exparte application for the order NISI was filed in bad faith.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in; line-height:normal;mso-list:l6 level1 lfo6"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-fareast-font-family: "Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">d.<span style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">The said Order was made by the Honourable court without jurisdiction.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">The motion on Notice is supported by 12 (twelve) paragraph affidavit deposed to by one Bruno Nwachukwu, a litigation officer with Imo State Ministry of Justice Owerri. A written address accompanying the motion was also filed by the Defendants/Applicants Counsel. Where Counsel raised a lone issue for the Court’s determination:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><b><i><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">Whether the Defendants/Applicants have made out a case for the grants of the reliefs sought in this application.<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">Counsel in arguing this issue submitted that this Court has inherent as well as statutory jurisdiction to set aside its order/judgement. Counsel referred the Court to the case of <b>ENE vs. ASIKPO (2011) All FWLR (Pt. 553) 1907 at 1940 para D-E</b> where the Court held as follows:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><b><i><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">“A Court has an inherent power to set aside its own order or judgement which is a complete nullity. Where therefore, it is shown that there was a fundamental defect which goes to the root of jurisdiction or competence of the Court, such Court has inherent jurisdiction to regard the order as a nullity and to set it aside upon application”.<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">Therefore Counsel stated that the garnishee proceeding brought by the Claimants/Respondents was incompetent and the Court lacks the jurisdiction to entertain same and make the Order, citing Section 8 (1) and (2) of the State Proceedings Edict, 1994 Laws of Imo State.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family: "Comic Sans MS""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">It is Counsel submission that the Claimants/Respondents did not fulfil the conditions precedent stated in Section 8 (1) of the State Proceedings Edict, 1994 by sending a copy of the judgment under the Seal of this Court to the Attorney General of Imo State and Accountant General of Imo State before filing the garnishee proceedings. Counsel further submitted that the Claimants/Respondents did not obtain the consent of the Attorney General of the State; therefore robbed the Court of its jurisdiction to hear the application and make the Order Nisi of 13/4/2016. Counsel urged the Court to so hold and grant this application.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family: "Comic Sans MS""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">Upon the receipt of the service of motion on Notice on the Claimants/Respondents, they filed their Counter affidavit on the 17<sup>th</sup> May 2016. The said counter affidavit of 5 (five) paragraph was deposed to by the 1<sup>st</sup> Claimant/Judgment Creditor. Along with the counter affidavit is a written address dated and filed the same day where Counsel to the Claimants/Respondents submitted one issue for determination thus:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><b><i><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">Whether the Applicants/Defendants have made out a case for the Order Nisi to be set aside.<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">On this issue Counsel submitted that it is trite law that a successful party is entitled to reap the fruits of his victory and one of the methods to realize the fruit of his judgement is to obtain an Order from the Court to attach any debt owing to the Judgment Debtor from any person(s) or body as the case may be. Counsel referred the Court to the case of <b>Zenith Bank vs. Igbokwe (2014) All FWLR (Pt. 756) Pg 451 at 466 para G-F</b>.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family: "Comic Sans MS""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">Counsel submitted that it is the misled content of the Applicants/Defendants that the Claimants/Judgment Creditors/Respondents suppressed and misrepresented facts which led the Court to make an Order Nisi. The main plank of their submission is that the said Notice of Appeal and Motion for Stay of Execution was served on the Claimants/Judgment Creditors/Respondents through one Miss Onyinyechi Dimkpa, a secretary in the chambers of their counsel, who is a stranger to the proceedings. Service of a Notice of Appeal must be served on the Claimants themselves as it is an originating process. Counsel further submitted that after the erroneous service by the Applicants/Defendants N.R. Chibuisi (Mrs.), a legal practitioner, wrote a letter dated 28<sup>th</sup> August 2015 to the Assistant Registrar of this Court, informing her of the incorrect service of the Notice of Appeal and the motion for stay of execution and the return of the said processes. Furthermore according to Counsel, there is no proof that the Claimants/Judgment Creditors who are the actual parties in the suit were duly served. Counsel submitted that no material fact was suppressed and this Honourable Court was right to make the Order Nisi.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family: "Comic Sans MS""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">It is Counsel’s submission that assuming without conceding that there is an appeal, it is trite that such appeal does not preclude the Judgment Creditors from instituting a garnishhe proceeding. This is because the garnishee proceeding is a separate proceeding in law and therefore sui generis. See <b>SOKOTO STATE GOVERNMENT vs. KANDAX (NIG.) LTD. (2004) 9 NWLR (Pt. 878) Pg. 345 at 380</b>. He submitted further that it is trite that execution and garnishee proceedings are two distinct methods of enforcement of judgment. In <b>PURIFICATION TECHNIQUES (NIG.) LTD. vs. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF LAGOS STATE (2004) 9 NWLR (Pt. 879) Pg. 665 at 678, para H</b>, the Court of Appeal Per <b>GALADIMA JCA</b> stated thus:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">“Execution of a judgment entails the seizure and sale of chattels of the judgment debtor under warrant of court. This is different from attachment of debt owed to a judgment debtor by a third party who is indebted to the judgment debtor who is not proceeding against the judgment debtor directly.”<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">From the above, it means that an application for stay of execution cannot rightfully be said to lie against a garnishee proceeding. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">Counsel submitted further that the purported existence and/or pendency of an appeal and application for stay of execution against the judgement of this Court does not have an impact on the extant garnishee proceeding, as garnishee proceeding is solely between the judgment creditors and the garnishees in this case Skye Bank and Fidelity Bank.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family: "Comic Sans MS""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">Counsel therefore stated that the Judgment Debtor is not a party to the garnishee proceedings in as much as Order Nisi is served on them, they are a stranger, and therefore lacks the locus in law to challenge the Order Nisi made by this Court. Counsel referred the Court to the case of <b>UNITED BANK FOR AFRICA PLC vs. IBORO EKANEM (2010) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1190) Pg. 207 at 226 para H</b> wherein the Honourable Court stated it clear thus:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><b><i><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">“A judgment debtor has little or no role to play in garnishee proceedings. A motion by the judgment debtor to stay the execution of the garnishee order is tantamount to being a meddlesome interloper. It is left for the garnishee bank that is dissatisfied with an order Nisi to apply to the Court giving reasons why the Order Nisi should not be made absolute”.<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">Counsel referred Court in adumbration, to the case of <b>Ihedioha vs. Okorocha (2016) 1 NWLR (Pt. 1492) Pg. 147 at 149H to 180A and Pg. 204, para C-E;</b> in further support of this argument. He submitted that the applicants are meddlesome interlopers and as such have no place in garnishee proceedings. They cannot therefore bring the present application for this court to set aside an order duly made. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family: "Comic Sans MS""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">Counsel also submitted that the Applicants/Defendant’s argument that the Claimant Respondent did not meet the condition precedent in Section 8 (1) & (2) of the State Proceedings Edict; 1994 Laws of Imo State is based on a false premise; knowing fully well that the Section is not applicable to the garnishee proceedings as governed by Sheriffs and Civil Process Act which has established the procedure for commencement of garnishee proceedings. Counsel further stated ex abundant cautela that the Claimants /Respondent through their Counsel wrote a letter dated 27<sup>th</sup> January 2016 to the Attorney General of the State informing him of the judgement and unsatisfied judgement sum in this case and the said copy of the letter is attached to the counter affidavit as Exhibit B. It is the submission of Counsel that the Claimants/Respondents have duly complied with the condition precedent as contained in Section 84(1) of the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act and therefore contention of the Applicants/Defendants is baseless and the Court was right to make the Order Nisi.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">Counsel urged the Court to discountenance the prayers of the Applicants in its entirety and uphold the Order Nisi. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family: "Comic Sans MS""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">Upon the service of the Claimants/Respondents’ counter affidavit and written address on the 1st and 2<sup>nd</sup> Defendants/Applicants, they filed a Six (6) paragraph Further Affidavit deposed to by one Mrs Queen Unas litigation officer with Imo State Ministry of Justice, Owerri and a written address on points of law wherein Counsel submitted that it is not correct as submitted by Claimants’ Counsel that the judgement sum was in the sum of </span><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">₦</span><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">98,194,616.00. Rather, the Court ordered in the judgement that the Defendants should calculate and pay to the Claimants their salaries and allowances due to them for the months of June 2012 to February 2015. He also submitted that it is not correct that and the Notice of Appeal being an originating process must be served personally on the parties. Counsel referred the Court to Order 6 rule 9 of the Court of Appeal Rules 2011. According to Counsel, in all the processes filed by the Claimants/Respondents, they had always given their Counsel’s address as their address for service.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family: "Comic Sans MS""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">Counsel further submitted that pendency of the motion for stay of execution precludes a judgement creditor from initiating a garnishee proceeding. According to Counsel, that is the current position of law, as against the Judgment Creditors’ submission that it doesn’t estop garnishee proceedings. He cited the case of <b>Vaswani Trading Co. vs. Savannah & Co (2000) FWLR (Pt. 28) 2183; F. I. B. Plc. vs. Effiong (2010) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1218) 199 at 205 -207</b>. The Supreme Court cited with approval the English case of <b>Wilson vs. Church (No 2) (1879) 12CH.D 454 at 459</b> where it has held thus:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><b><i><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">“The granting of a stay of execution is a matter of discretion for the court and any action or conduct which tends to stifle the exercise of such discretion must be frowned at by the court.”<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">In conclusion Counsel urged the Court to grant their application and set aside the Order Nisi and stay further proceedings of the garnishee proceedings, pending the hearing and determination of their appeal.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family: "Comic Sans MS""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><b><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">The 3rd Application is the Notice of Preliminary Objection of the 4<sup>th</sup> Defendant, dated and filed on the 9<sup>th</sup> day of May, 2016</span></b><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS""> wherein the 4<sup>th</sup> Judgement Debtor/Applicant challenged the competence of the garnishee proceedings on the following grounds: <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in; line-height:normal;mso-list:l2 level1 lfo7"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-fareast-font-family: "Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">1.<span style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">That the judgment sought to be enforced is a judgment against the state.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in; line-height:normal;mso-list:l2 level1 lfo7"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-fareast-font-family: "Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">2.<span style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">That the consent of the Attorney General was not first sought and obtained before the commencement of a garnishee proceedings.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">In support of the Notice of Preliminary Objection is a 5 (five) paragraph affidavit deposed to by one Uchenna Chamberline Onwuneme a litigation officer with Imo State House of Assembly, and a written address wherein counsel raised a sole issue for determination thus:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;text-indent:.5in;line-height:normal"><b><i><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">Whether the garnishee proceedings is not competent <o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;text-indent:.5in;line-height:normal"><b><i><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS""> </span></i></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">Counsel submitted that by the provision of Section 84 of the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act Cap 86 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004, a Judgment Creditor who has obtained a Judgment against the state, must as a condition precedent, first obtain the consent of the Attorney–General before enforcing the Judgment of the state. Counsel cited the case of <b>CBN vs. Hydro Air Pty Ltd. (2014) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1434) Pg. 482 at 489-490 ratio 3&4</b>.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family: "Comic Sans MS""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">Counsel further submitted that this condition precedent must still be fulfilled even where the Attorney General is a party as in this suit. See <b>CBN vs. Hydro Air Pty Ltd (supra)</b> where the Court held thus:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><b><i><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">“Where the Attorney–General is a party to a suit, his prior consent is still required to meet the requirement under Section 84 of the Sheriff and Civil Process Act”.<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">Counsel submitted that Judgment Creditors never sought and obtained the said consent, therefore making the garnishee proceeding incompetent and all the action taken thereunder nullity.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family: "Comic Sans MS""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">In conclusion counsel urged the Court to set aside the Order Nisi for failure to comply with the condition precedent required.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family: "Comic Sans MS""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">In opposition to the 4<sup>th</sup> Defendants Notice of Preliminary Objection, the Claimants/Respondents on the 17<sup>th</sup> day of May 2016, filed a counter affidavit of a 7 (seven) paragraph deposed to by Paul Ogujiofor the 1<sup>st</sup> Claimant/Judgment Creditor. In the accompanying written address, a lone issue was raised by Counsel for the Court’s determination:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;text-indent:.5in;line-height:normal"><b><i><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">Whether the Order Nisi made by this honourable court is competent</span></i></b><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">Counsel submitted that Section 84 of the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act, Cap 56 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria provides thus:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><b><i><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">84 (1) ‘’where money liable to be attached by garnishee proceedings is in the custody or under the control of the public officer in his official capacity or in custodia legis, the Order Nisi shall not be made under the provisions of the last preceding sections unless consent to such attachments 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.<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">Counsel submitted that the implication of Section 84(1) and (3) of the Sheriff and Civil Process Act is that monies in the account of Imo State Government in a bank is not in the custody or control of a public officer who holds a public office in the public service of Imo State. Counsel therefore stated that the authority relied on by the Applicant Counsel is grossly misapplied. He referred the Court to the recent authority of <b>CBN vs. Njemanze (2015) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1449) 276 at 287 – 288</b> where the Court of Appeal disagreed with their earlier decision that Central Bank of Nigeria is a public officer. In a leading judgment per Agbo JCA, it was stated thus:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><b><i><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">“I definitely do not have problem with classifying officers of the CBN as public officer but I find it unacceptable to classify CBN as a public officer because it acts as a banker to the Federal Government of Nigeria in respect of credit balances in the accounts of the Federal Government of Nigeria.” <o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">Counsel further submitted that in the instant case, the Order Nisi made, which is to attach the monies of the Judgment Debtors in the custody of the garnishee who are commercial bank is proper and within the scope of the law as enshrined in the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act as in the case of <b>PURIFICATION TECHNIQUES (NIG) LTD vs. A. G. LAGOS STATE (2004) 9 NWLR (Pt. 879) 665</b> which is on all fours with the issue under consideration in this present case.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family: "Comic Sans MS""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">In conclusion, Counsel urged the Court to discountenance the Preliminary Objection of the Applicant and make the Order Nisi absolute.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family: "Comic Sans MS""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">In their reply on points of law, the 4<sup>th</sup> Defendant Counsel stated that the Claimants in their written address provoked an issue of law which is predicated on the authority of the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act Section 84 Cap 86 Laws of the Federation 2004 where the draftsman made use of two key words to ascertain when the consent of the Attorney General is necessary or should be sought namely:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">“ CUSTODY” AND “CONTROL’’.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">Counsel stated that according to Blacks Laws Dictionary 9<sup>th</sup> edition by Brynan Garner the two words used are defined as:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">“CONTROL: It means the direct or indirect power to direct the management and policies of a person or entity whether through ownership or voting securities by contract or otherwise”.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">“CUSTODY: The care and control of a thing or person for inspection, preservation and security”.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family: "Comic Sans MS""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">Counsel submitted that where the words of a statute are clear and unambiguous, the Court is called upon to give literary interpretation of same. Counsel cited the case of <b>E.A. UTOMUDO vs. MILITARY GOVERNOR of BENDEL STATE & 4 ORS (2014) All FWLR (Pt. 746) Pg. 502 at 506 ratio 3.</b> Counsel further submitted that a hard look at the definitions of custody and control clearly shows that the money in the account of the government or any arm of the government is under the control or custody of that government or any of such arm of the government. The maxim <b><i>quic facit per alum facit per se</i></b> which means that <b><i>he who does something through another does it himself</i></b> is applicable. Counsel urged the Court to discountenance the counter affidavit and written address of the Claimants and proceed to set aside the Order Nisi for failure to obtain the Attorney General’s consent as required by law.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family: "Comic Sans MS""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">On the 3<sup>rd</sup> day of May 2016, the 1<sup>st</sup> Garnishee i.e. <b>Skye Bank</b> filed a 6 (six) paragraph Counter Affidavit deposed to by one Ugoma Chinwe, a litigation clerk in the law firm of L. C. Ugorji & Associates of No 134 Wetheral Road Owerri Imo State. Accompanying the Counter Affidavit is one Annexture, being a Statement of Account showing a balance of <s>N</s>1,050.00.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family: "Comic Sans MS""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">In opposition to the 1<sup>st</sup> Garnishee’s Counter Affidavit, the Judgment Creditors on the 17<sup>th</sup> May 2016 filed an affidavit in opposition to the 1<sup>st</sup> Garnishee Affidavit to show cause. The said 8 (Eight) paragraph affidavit was deposed to by Paul Ogujiofor the 1<sup>st</sup> Claimant/Judgment Creditor.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family: "Comic Sans MS""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">Upon the receipt of the Judgment Creditors’ affidavit in opposition, the 1<sup>st</sup> Garnishee on the 11<sup>th</sup> July 2016 filed a 6 (six) paragraph Further Counter Affidavit deposed to by one Ugoma Chinwe, a litigation clerk in the law firm of L. C. Ugorji & Associates of No. 134 Wetheral Road Owerri, along with a Written Address. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family: "Comic Sans MS""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">In the accompanying written address, two issues were raised for determination:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="margin-left:.75in;mso-add-space:auto; text-align:justify;text-indent:-.5in;line-height:normal;mso-list:l7 level1 lfo8"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-fareast-font-family: "Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">i.<span style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">Whether the Governor of Imo State is the same as Government of Imo <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">State to warrant the garnishee application of the Judgment Creditors against the account of the Government of Imo State.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:.75in;mso-add-space: auto;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.5in;line-height:normal;mso-list:l7 level1 lfo8"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-fareast-font-family: "Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">ii.<span style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">Whether, without the consent of the Attorney General of Imo State first <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom: .0001pt;mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">sought and obtained, this garnishee proceeding is competent and properly before the Honourable Court.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">On issue one, Counsel submitted that the Judgment Creditors presented the account of the Government of Imo State purporting same to be the account of the 1<sup>st</sup> Judgment Debtor, which it is trite that Government of Imo State refers to the executive headed by the Governor of Imo State, the Legislature headed by the Speaker of the House of Assembly and the Judiciary headed by the Chief Judge of Imo State, these arms of Government are separate and distinct from each other and are referred to as Government of Imo State and any account belonging to Government of Imo State belongs to the three arms mentioned above. Counsel cited the case of <b>Attorney General of Abia State & Ors vs. Attorney General of Federation (2003) LPELR – 610 S.C P I at pp 23-24.<o:p></o:p></b></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><b><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS""> </span></b></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">Counsel further submitted that the three arms of the Government of Imo State maintain joint account as shown in accounts Number: 4030010511 stated in the affidavit evidence of the Judgment Creditors. The said account is Consolidated Revenue Fund, provided for in Section 120 of the 1999 Constitution, each of the three arms of the government also maintain their separate accounts as clearly shown in Exhibit A of the 1<sup>st</sup> Garnishee counter affidavit. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS""> </span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">Counsel also submits that the provisions of Section 120 of the 1999 Constitution notwithstanding, it is equally trite that a joint account cannot be garnished in respect of a debt by one of the parties. Counsel referred the Court to the case of <b>Plunkett vs. Barclays Bank Ltd (1936) 1 All ER Pg. 635.<o:p></o:p></b></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><b><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS""> </span></b></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">On issue 2, Counsel submitted that it is a fact that the Judgment Creditors did not apply nor obtain the consent of the Attorney General of Imo State as required by the provisions of Section 84 of the Sherriff and Civil process Act, thereby rendering the said garnishee proceedings incompetent and not properly before the Court.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">Infact, Counsel’s arguments on this issue 2 are materially the same with the 4<sup>th</sup> Defendant’s arguments in their Notice of Preliminary Objection. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family: "Comic Sans MS""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">In conclusion, the 1<sup>st</sup> Garnishee humbly urged the Court to discharge the garnishee Order Nisi made against the 1<sup>st</sup> Garnishee.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family: "Comic Sans MS""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">Upon service of the 1<sup>st</sup> Garnishee’s Further Counter Affidavit on the Judgment Creditors, in opposition, on the 11<sup>th</sup> day of August 2016, they filed a 9 (Nine) paragraph further affidavit deposed to by Paul Ogujiofor the 1<sup>st</sup> Claimant/Judgment Creditor. In the accompanying written address, Counsel called for the determination of two issues, namely:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in; line-height:normal;mso-list:l9 level1 lfo9"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-fareast-font-family: "Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">a.<span style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">Whether an issue not raised in the affidavit can be raised in a written address.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;line-height:normal; mso-list:l9 level1 lfo9"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-fareast-font-family: "Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">b.<span style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">Whether the justice of this case is in favour of this Honourable Court making absolute the Order Nisi granted on 13<sup>th</sup> April, 2016.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">On issue 1, Counsel submitted that it is trite that when a cause or matter is begun by an originating motion or an application, the primary source of evidence is affidavit evidence. <b>NWOSU vs. IMO STATE ENVIRONMENTAL SANITATION AUTHORITY (1990) 2 NWLR (Pt. 135) 688 at 715 B- 718C</b>. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family: "Comic Sans MS""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">The 1<sup>st</sup> Garnishee filed two affidavits of 6 paragraphs each, and upon a close look at all the affidavits, it will be observed that there is no mention of account number 4030010511 as the Consolidated Revenue Fund of the Government, neither is there a mention of the account being that of the three arms of government and no issue of consent of Attorney General was mentioned in the two affidavits.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">Counsel submitted that Courts have held in a plethora of cases that cases are decided on evidence and no amount of brilliance in an address can make up for lack of evidence. In <b>Chevron (Nig.) Ltd vs. Titan Energy Ltd (2014) All FWLR (Pt. 758) 884, 916F</b> it was held that:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><b><i><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">“Counsel must base his address on pleaded facts as litigation is made up of a combination of fact and the law. A counsel cannot rightly raise and issue of fact in the final address.” <o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">Finally Counsel respectfully urged the Honourable Court to discountenance the entire issue canvassed at their written address as facts therein were not deposed to in the affidavits of the 1<sup>st</sup> Garnishee.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family: "Comic Sans MS""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">On issue 2, Counsel submitted it has been held that the use or purpose for which an account is operated is immaterial; irrespective of the fact that the account is a revenue account. The real test is whether the account in question is that of the Judgment Debtors. Counsel referred to the case of <b>Guarantee Trust Bank Plc vs. Innoson Nigeria Limited (2014) LPELR 22605 (CA) P. 39 D-E </b>Per<b> </b>Uwa J.C.A: <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><b><i><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">“In my humble view the ‘revenue account’ were operated by the 1<sup>st</sup> Judgment Debtor. The use the funds are to be made use of or the purpose for which the account was operated is immaterial. The most important thing is that the account was operated by and belongs to the 1<sup>st</sup> Judgment Debtor.”<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">It is Counsel submission therefore that the 1<sup>st</sup> Judgment Debtor, the Governor of Imo State is synonymous to the Imo State Government and that the Imo State Government Internally Generated Revenue Account with account number: 4030010511 belongs to the 1<sup>st</sup> Judgment Debtor since executive powers of a state is vested in the Governor of that State. See Section 5 (2) of the 1999 Constitution as amended. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family: "Comic Sans MS""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">In conclusion, Counsel urged the Court to hold that the 1<sup>st</sup> Garnishee did not make out a cause why the Order Nisi should not be made absolute because the fact relied on in the written address of the 1<sup>st</sup> Garnishee were not deposed to in its affidavit; Section 120 of the Constitution does not apply to the instant case as the account sought to be garnisheed is not the Consolidated Revenue Fund and Section 84 of the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act does not apply as the funds in the instant case being in the custody of a private owned bank does not require the consent of the Attorney- General of Imo State.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family: "Comic Sans MS""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">The 2<sup>nd</sup> Garnishee i.e. Fidelity Bank Plc on the 27<sup>th</sup> day of April 2016, filed a 9 (Nine) paragraph affidavit to show cause deposed to by one Miss Ogechi Anumodu litigation secretary in the firm of Joe Onyenakazi & Co. of plot 131 Ikenegbu Layout Owerri with one (1) annexure. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">Upon being served with the 2<sup>nd</sup> Garnishee’s affidavit to show cause, the Judgment Creditors, on the 17<sup>th</sup> day of May 2016, filed a 10 (ten) paragraph affidavit in opposition to the 2<sup>nd</sup> Garnishee’s affidavit to show cause. The said affidavit was deposed to by Paul Ogujiofor the 1<sup>st</sup> Claimant/Judgment Creditor. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family: "Comic Sans MS""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">On the 13<sup>th</sup> day of June 2016 the 2<sup>nd</sup> Garnishee filed an 11 (eleven) paragraph further affidavit to show cause, deposed to be one Miss Ogechi Anumodu, a litigation secretary in the firm of Joe Onyenakazi & Co with 3 annexures. On the 16<sup>th</sup> day of September 2016, the 2<sup>nd</sup> Garnishee’s Counsel filed a written address submitting a lone issue for the Court’s determination thus:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;line-height:normal; mso-list:l1 level1 lfo10"><!--[if !supportLists]--><b><i><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-fareast-font-family: "Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">(a)<span style="font-style: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-weight: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></i></b><!--[endif]--><b><i><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">Whether from the facts and law governing Garnishee proceedings, the 2<sup>nd</sup> Garnishee is entitled to a right of lien.<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><b><i><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS""> </span></i></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">Counsel answered this question in the affirmative by stating that in their affidavit to show cause, it was averred that Imo State Government is indebted to her at the time the Order Nisi was served on them, therefore the 2<sup>nd</sup> Garnishee has a right of lien or set off on the attached amount, as in compliance with Section 88 and 89 of the Sheriff and Civil Process Act 2004.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family: "Comic Sans MS""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">It is Counsel contention that Imo State Government has an unliquidated loan facility account as admitted by the 2<sup>nd</sup> Garnishee, but the fact that it is in possession of the money belonging to the Imo State Government, same cannot be paid over to the Judgment Creditors because the Imo State Government is also indebted to the 2<sup>nd</sup> Garnishee. Counsel referred to the similar case of <b>Obafemi Awolowo University vs. Olanihu (1996) 18 NWLR (Pt. 464) 123, Fidelity Bank Plc vs. Francis Okwu Ownlu delivered on Thursday 26<sup>th</sup> April 2012 in Appeal No: CA/L/776M/2006 and First Inland Bank Plc vs. Glory Effiong (2010) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1218) 199</b> respectively.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family: "Comic Sans MS""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">Counsel submitted that the defence of set off or lien are legitimate defences available to the 2<sup>nd</sup> Garnishee, provided that there is evidence that the Judgment Debtor is indebted to the Garnishee. Moreover Section 88 of the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act supports the above stated defence. Therefore, the moment a Garnishee raises the issue of set off or lien, the Court has a duty under Section 87 of the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act to order for witnesses to testify to that effect or to discharge the Garnishee.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family: "Comic Sans MS""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">In conclusion, Counsel urged the Court to discountenance the argument of the Judgment Creditors and discharge the 2<sup>nd</sup> Garnishee. He also referred the Court to the recent unreported decision in the case of <b>Hon Barr. Louis Chukwu vs. Imo State Government in Suit No: NICN/EN/66/2012 and Hon. Jonas Okeke vs. Government of Imo State in Suit No: NICN/EN/65/2012.<o:p></o:p></b></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><b><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS""> </span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">Upon the receipt of the 2<sup>nd</sup> Garnishee’s written address, the Judgment Creditors on the 26<sup>th</sup> day of September 2016 filed a written address in support of the Order Nisi granted on 13<sup>th</sup> April 2016. In opposition to the written address filed by the 2<sup>nd</sup> Garnishee on the 19/9/2016, counsel raised one issue for determination namely:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><b><i><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">Whether this Honourable Court should make an order absolute against the Judgment Debtors in respect of account number: 5030062113 with the 2<sup>nd</sup> Garnishee. <o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">Counsel submitted that the affidavit evidence of the 2<sup>nd</sup> Garnishee is shown to be contradictory. Such contradiction affects the credibility of such deponent. At first, the 2<sup>nd</sup> Garnishee said the only account with them is the one of the 3<sup>rd</sup> Judgment Debtor; but when the Judgment Creditors served them with their affidavit disclosing the 1<sup>st</sup> Judgment Debtor’s account with them, the 2<sup>nd</sup> Garnishee agreed through their further affidavit.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family: "Comic Sans MS""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">Counsel stated that the issue of the existence of a lien was argued on behalf of the Judgment Creditors as the 2<sup>nd</sup> Garnishee did not frontload the loan agreement between her and the Judgment Debtors. Also the name of the account sought to be garnisheed is Imo State Government Bailout account not a loan account as established by the 2<sup>nd</sup> Garnishee.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family: "Comic Sans MS""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">In conclusion, Counsel submitted that the affidavit evidence of the 2<sup>nd</sup> Garnishee are self-contradictory and should not be believed, Exhibits NKI & NKII were made for this suit as they were not certified, neither did the bank account comply with what is in existence now, also account number: 5030062113, Imo State Government Bailout account exists and the amount standing to the credit of the Judgment Debtors is <s>N</s>20,000,000,000.00. But assuming what exists is the sum of <s>N</s>101,281,887.40k, the above sum should be garnisheed and the Judgment Creditors benefit from the fruits of their judgment.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">Finally, counsel urged the Court to make the Order Nisi absolute as the 2nd Garnishee has not been able to establish the existence of a lien.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family: "Comic Sans MS""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">In the 2<sup>nd</sup> Garnishee’s reply filed on 6<sup>th</sup> October 2016, Counsel to the 2<sup>nd</sup> Garnishee stated that the account disclosed does not belong to the 1<sup>st</sup> Judgment Debtor instead it is for Imo State Government, therefore making the Judgment Creditors arguments flawed in their thought process. That the Judgment Creditors failed to appreciate the fact that Imo State Government is not the same thing as Governor of Imo State and urged the Court to disbelieve the 2<sup>nd</sup> Garnishee’s assertion that it has a lien over the money in the name of Imo State Government to make an order absolute in their favour. It is the further submission of Counsel that the Judgment Creditors cannot in their written address challenge the averment contained in the affidavit of the 2<sup>nd</sup> Garnishee. It is trite law that such can only be challenge by way of a counter affidavit, and because it is not challenged, that Imo State Government is presently indebted to the 2<sup>nd</sup> Garnishee, the law is that uncontroverted facts contained in an affidavit are taken as true and only minimal proof is required of such evidence. <b>PSHSM vs. GOSHWE (2013) 10 WRN Pg. 14 lines 10-20.<o:p></o:p></b></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family: "Comic Sans MS""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">Finally Counsel urged the Court to discountenance the erroneous and misconceived technical issues which the Judgment Creditors canvassed in their written address, and discharge the 2<sup>nd</sup> Garnishee for the reasons that the account erroneously disclosed does not belong to the Governor of Imo State i.e. 1<sup>st</sup> Judgment Debtor. The 2<sup>nd</sup> Garnishee also indicated that it disputes liability, assuming the Court holds that the account belongs to the 1<sup>st</sup> Judgment Debtor.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:2.0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:.5in; line-height:normal"><b><u><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">COURT’s DECISION <o:p></o:p></span></u></b></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">From the foregoing synopsis, there are for different applications which are to be determined in this ruling. These applications, as identified, are:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">1. The 1<sup>st</sup> and 2<sup>nd</sup> judgment debtors’ motion for stay of execution,<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.5in"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">2. Motion by the 1<sup>st</sup> and 2<sup>nd</sup> judgment debtors for an order setting aside the order nisi and stay of proceedings of the garnishee proceedings,<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">3. Notice of preliminary objection by 4<sup>th</sup> judgment debtor, and<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.5in"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">4. The garnishees affidavits to show cause in the garnishee proceedings brought by the judgment creditors.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 4pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">I will consider each of these applications in the sequence they have been itemised above, although some of them which are interrelated in terms of similar grounds or same points of law may be considered together.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 4pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">The first of the applications was filed on 24/8/2015 by the 1<sup>st</sup> and 2<sup>nd</sup> judgment debtors wherein they prayed for an order staying execution or enforcement of the judgment delivered on 1<sup>st</sup> July 2015 pending the determination of an appeal they have filed against the judgment. In the alternative, the 1<sup>st</sup> and 2<sup>nd</sup> judgment debtors sought an injunctive order for preservation of the subject matter or the status quo of the parties pending the determination of the appeal. In the affidavit of Bruno Nwachukwu filed in support of the motion, it was averred that the judgment of this court delivered on 1<sup>st</sup> July 2015 ordered the judgment debtors to calculate and pay to the judgment creditors salaries and allowances due to them from June 2012 to February 2015. Being dissatisfied with the judgment, the 1<sup>st</sup> and 2<sup>nd</sup> judgment debtors filed a notice of appeal on 12/8/2015. The grounds of the appeal discloses special and exceptional circumstances which have to do with denial of constitutional right of fear hearing. The said grounds of appeal are also recondite and are likely to succeed. The judgment creditors are out of job since June 2012 and if the judgment sum is paid to them, they will fritter it away before the appeal is determined and they will not be able to refund the sum if the appeal succeeds. Execution of the judgment will equally foist a situation of helplessness on the Court of Appeal and render its judgment nugatory. In a letter dated 13/8/2015, they applied to the registrar of this court for compilation of the record of appeal. They undertake to diligently and expeditiously prosecute the appeal by ensuring that the records of appeal are promptly compiled and transmitted to the Court of Appeal. The judgment creditors will not be prejudiced if the status quo is maintained pending the determination of the appeal. Annexed to the affidavit are CTC of the judgment delivered by this court on 1<sup>st</sup> July 2015, a copy of the Notice of Appeal filed on 12<sup>th</sup> August 2015 and a letter to this court dated 13<sup>th</sup> August 2015 requesting compilation of records of appeal. These were marked Exhibits A, B and C respectively. The learned counsel for the 1<sup>st</sup> and 2<sup>nd</sup> judgment debtors canvassed two main points in his submissions. First is that the 1<sup>st</sup> and 2<sup>nd</sup> judgment creditors have disclosed special and exceptional circumstances in the application in that the grounds of appeal raises recondite issues of law which are likely to succeed on appeal, and secondly, that they have shown that the judgment creditors will not be able to refund the judgment sum if the appeal succeeds.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 4pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">The judgment creditors did not file a counter affidavit or any process to oppose the motion. However, in an oral submission made by the learned SAN for the judgment creditors when the motion was heard on 10/11/2016, he urged the court to either strike out or dismiss the motion for these reasons: the judgment creditors were not served either the notice of appeal or the motion for stay of execution, the motion for stay of execution or the filing of appeal is different from garnishee proceedings and that the record of appeal has not been compiled and transmitted to the Court of Appeal.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 4pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">It is obvious that the judgment creditors did not file any process in respect of this motion. The senior counsel for the judgment creditor did explain however the reason for the default in filing a counter affidavit. He told the court that although the processes were served to his chambers, they were returned to this court through a letter dated 28<sup>th</sup> August 2015. He submitted that the processes ought to have been served on the parties themselves. That is to say the motion was actually served on the counsel to the judgment creditors but because counsel felt it ought to have been served on the judgment creditors personally, the motion was returned to court. The motion was received by Dimkpa Onyinyechi in the office of J.T.U Nnodum SAN & Co who were counsels to the judgment creditors throughout the whole proceedings up to judgment. The chambers also represents the judgment creditors in the garnishee proceedings filed after the motion for stay was returned. That is to say the judgment creditors did not change their counsel in this matter at any time. Order 7 Rule 2 (2) of the NIC Rules 2007 provides that where a party is represented by a legal practitioner, service of court process may be made on such legal practitioner or on a person under his or her control. Therefore, service of any court process on the legal practitioner of a party is service on that party. As I see it, the law office of the senior counsel for the judgment creditors remained the legal practitioners of the judgment creditors in this matter up to date. In view of the very clear rule of this court, the Chambers had no justification for rejecting or returning the motion to this court. Since the senior counsel agrees that the motion was served but his office decided to return it to court, I have no reason not to hold that the judgment creditor were served with the motion for stay of execution filed by the 1<sup>st</sup> and 2<sup>nd</sup> judgment debtors. Having been served, the judgment creditors failed to react to it. The explanation given by the learned senior counsel for failing and refusing to react to the motion is not tenable. The clear implication is that the facts deposed in the affidavit in support of the motion are not challenged nor is the motion itself opposed. The legal effect of having facts deposed in an affidavit in support of an application unchallenged is well settled in plethora of authorities but I will not walk that lane at the moment in view of the issue of failure of the judgment debtors to compile record of appeal raised by the learned senior counsel for the judgment creditors. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 4pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">The learned senior counsel for the judgment creditors submitted that the record of appeal has not been compiled and transmitted contrary to Order 8, Rule 4 of the Court to Appeal Rules 2011. It has however been deposed in the affidavit in support of the motion that the 1<sup>st</sup> and 2<sup>nd</sup> judgment debtors have applied to the registrar of this court in a letter dated 13/8/2015 for compilation of the record of appeal and that they undertake to diligently and expeditiously prosecute the appeal by ensuring that the records of appeal are promptly compiled and transmitted to the Court of Appeal. The said letter to this court was annexed to the affidavit as Exhibit C. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 4pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">This contention of the learned senior counsel drew my attention to Order 30 Rule 2 of the NIC Rules 2007. The rule provides as follows-<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify"><b><i><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">“An applicant for stay of execution of a judgment or for stay of proceedings under this order shall compile the record of appeal within 21 days from the date of filing a notice of appeal and where the record is not so compiled, the respondent may apply to strike out the application or discharge the order where already granted.”<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 4pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">By the rule, the 1<sup>st</sup> and 2<sup>nd</sup> judgment debtors are required to compile the record of appeal within 21 days from the date of filing a notice of appeal and if not so done, the application for stay of execution or stay of proceeding is liable to be struck out. Now, as at the time this motion was heard, has the record of appeal been compiled and transmitted to the Court of Appeal? The notice of appeal annexed as Exhibit B to the motion for stay of execution shows on its face that it was filed on 12<sup>th</sup> August 2015. The letter annexed as Exhibit C was received by the registry of this court on 14<sup>th</sup> August 2015. In the course of writing this ruling, I discovered that the record of appeal has not been compiled till date nor is it being compiled for transmission to the Court of Appeal. The senior counsel for the judgment creditors has now urged this court to strike out the motion for the failure of the judgment debtors to compile records accordingly.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 4pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">The Notice of Appeal against the judgment of this court was filed on 12<sup>th</sup> August 2015. This motion for stay of execution was filed on 24<sup>th</sup> August 2015 and was not heard until 16<sup>th</sup> November 2016. As at the date this application was heard, was a period of more than 15 months from the date the notice of appeal was filed. Yet, the record of appeal has not been compiled contrary to the rules of this court. Obviously, Order 30, Rule 2 of the rules of this court has not been complied with. The fact that the 1<sup>st</sup> and 2<sup>nd</sup> judgment debtors have written to this court for compilation of the record cannot help them here. Notwithstanding the letter, the judgment debtors were to ensure the record was compiled and transmitted. In my view, where the registry of this court fails to compile the record, it is mandatory on the judgment debtors to compile the record by themselves. Order 8 Rule 4, Court of Appeal Rules 2011 provides that where the registry of the lower court did not compile the record within 60 days of filing of the Notice of Appeal, it shall become mandatory for the appellant to compile the record. Therefore, where the registry of this court did not compile the record within 60 days after receiving the application, the responsibility shifted to the judgment debtors to do so. Although the judgment debtors have deposed in paragraph 6 (f) of the affidavit in support of the motion that they undertake to diligently and expeditiously prosecute the appeal by ensuring that the records of appeal are promptly compiled and transmitted to the Court of Appeal, there is no evidence that they took that undertaking seriously. The deposition was made since 24<sup>th</sup> August 2015 but up to the date of hearing of the motion, they have not seen to it that the record was compiled. It is now more than 15 months after the notice of appeal was filed. The judgment debtors, other than exhibiting the letter, did not show any other serious step they took to obtain or have the record compiled. It does not appear to me that the judgment debtors are interested in pursuing the appeal; otherwise by now, the appeal should have been entered in the Court of Appeal if they are serious about the appeal. This application clearly has a mischievous and malafide motive to it. Rules of Court are meant to be obeyed. Where there is non-compliance with the rules, the court is expected to apply the necessary sanction. In the circumstance of this application, the application for stay of execution ought to be struck out for the applicants’ failure to comply with the rules. With this development, it is no longer of any use to consider the merit of the motion but to strike it out. Accordingly, the motion is hereby struck out.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 4pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">By a motion ex parte filed on 9<sup>th</sup> March 2016, the judgment creditors commenced garnishee proceedings against two garnishees; Skye Bank and Fidelity Bank. On 13<sup>th</sup> April 2016, this court made an order nisi for the garnishees to show cause why the order nisi should not become absolute. The 1<sup>st</sup> & 2<sup>nd</sup> judgment debtors and the 4<sup>th</sup> judgment debtor subsequently filed two separate applications challenging the garnishee proceedings. The grounds of the 4<sup>th</sup> judgment debtors’ Notice of Preliminary Objection are that the judgment was against the state, and the consent of the Attorney General was not first sought and obtained before commencement of the garnishee proceedings. On the other hand, the 1<sup>st</sup> and 2<sup>nd</sup> judgment debtors, in their motion, pray for an order setting aside the order nisi made on 13/4/2016 based on erroneous facts, and an order staying the garnishee proceedings, pending the determination of the appeal filed by the judgment debtors against the judgment delivered on 1<sup>st</sup> July 2015. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 4pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">In view of the facts disclosed in the affidavit of the parties in respect of these two applications and having heard the submissions of counsels on the issues raised, I am inclined to first consider whether the judgment debtors are parties to the garnishee proceedings and can be heard on their applications brought to challenge the garnishee proceedings. The parties to garnishee proceedings have been defined in several judicial authorities. In <b>DENTON-WEST vs. MUOMA (2008) All FWLR (Pt. 433) 1423</b>, Kekere-Ekun JCA (as he then was) held at 1441 thus:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify"><b><i><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">“Garnishee proceedings are separate proceedings between the judgment creditor and the person or body who has custody of the assets of the judgment debtor, even though it flows from the judgment that pronounced the debt owing”</span></i></b><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";"> <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 4pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">In<b> UNITED BANK FOR AFRICA PLC vs. IBORO EKANEM (2010) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1190) 207, </b>it was held: <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify"><b><i><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">“The proceedings for this separate and distinct action is basically between the judgment creditor and the garnishee even though the Sheriff and Civil Processes Act requires that the judgment debtor be served with a copy of the order nisi. The judgment debtor is not a necessary party to the said proceedings”<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify"><b><i><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 4pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";"> </span></i></b></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">Further in <b>F.B.N PLC vs. F.C.M.B PLC (2014) All FWLR (Pt.751) 1451 at 1477, </b>it was held thus-<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify"><b><i><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">“A careful reading of the provisions of Sections 83(1) and (2), 85, 86, 87 and 90 of the Sheriffs and Civil Processes Act reveal that the judgment debtor has more or less no role to play in garnishee proceedings. A judgment debtor is merely a nominal party whose money in the custody of the garnishee is being recovered by the judgment creditor in satisfaction of the judgment debt owing to the judgment creditor.”<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 4pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">The above statements represent the position of parties in garnishee proceedings. The parties to garnishee proceedings are the judgment creditor and garnishee. The question can then be asked whether the judgment debtor who is not a party to garnishee proceeding can be heard to challenge the garnishee proceedings. In <b>UNITED BANK FOR AFRICA PLC vs. IBORO EKANEM (SUPRA), </b>it was held further that:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify"><b><i><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">“A judgment debtor is merely a nominal party whose money in the custody of the garnishee is being recovered by the judgment creditor in satisfaction of the judgment debt he is owing to the judgment creditor. He is not the one requested to appear before the court to show cause why the order nisi should not be made absolute. It is only the garnishee and only the garnishee is expected to inform the court if there is any third party interest in the said judgment debtor’s money in its custody. So it is only the garnishee that is expected to react if the law was not properly followed or observed.”<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 4pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">It was held further at page 226 of the report thus: <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify"><b><i><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">“A judgment debtor has little or no role to play in garnishee proceedings. A motion by the judgment debtor to stay execution of the garnishee order is tantamount to being a meddlesome interloper. It is left for the garnishee bank that is dissatisfied with an order nisi to apply to court giving reasons why the order nisi should not be made absolute.”<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 4pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">Also, in <b>NITEL PLC vs. I.C.I.C (DIRECTORY PUBLISHERS LTD) (2009) 16 NWLR (Pt.1167) 356</b>, the court held as follows:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify"><b><i><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">“Having found that the judgment debtor is a total stranger to a garnishee proceeding, especially after a garnishee order absolute has been made, it becomes manifestly clear that he cannot be heard on it except in a proper appeal.”<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 4pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">In view of these statements of the superior courts, I need not say more than to state that the judgment debtors, being strangers in these proceedings, have no part to play in it. The judgment debtors came in to the proceedings to challenge the competence of the garnishee proceeding. Only the garnishees have that opportunity. Accordingly, the applications filed by the judgment debtors are mere meddlesome interjections and ought to be struck out at once. I will however not take that course at this point. I wish to examine some of the points canvassed in the applications. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 4pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">In the affidavit in support of the Notice of Preliminary Objection of the 4<sup>th</sup> judgment debtor, it was deposed on behalf of the 4<sup>th</sup> judgment debtor that the judgment sought to be enforced was given against the state and the consent of the Attorney General was not first sought and obtained before commencement of the garnishee proceedings. The deponent prayed the court to set aside the order nisi because obtaining the consent of the Attorney General is a condition precedent for the commencement of garnishee proceedings. It was argued by the counsel for this party that the order nisi ought to be aside because before a judgment creditor who obtains judgment against the state can enforce the judgment, the consent of the Attorney General of the state must be sought and obtained under Section 84 of the Sheriffs and Civil Processes Act even if the Attorney General is a party to the case. Counsel placed reliance on the case of <b>C.B.N vs. HYDRO AIR PTY LTD (2014)</b>. The counsel for the 1<sup>st</sup> and 2<sup>nd</sup> judgment debtors also raised this point in his written address in support of the motion of 10/5/2016 seeking the setting aside of the order nisi. The counsel to the 1<sup>st</sup> garnishee has argued similarly in his written address in support of the further affidavit of the 1<sup>st</sup> garnishee. In the 2<sup>nd</sup> issue of the address, counsel raised the point whether the garnishee proceeding is competent when the consent of the Attorney General of Imo State was not first sought and obtained as required in Section 84 of the Sheriffs and Civil Processes Act before the garnishee proceedings were instituted. In a counter affidavit deposed to by the 1<sup>st</sup> judgment creditor in response to the affidavit of the 4<sup>th</sup> judgment debtors, it was averred that the consent of the Attorney General is required only where the money to be attached by garnishee proceeding is in the custody or control of a public officer who holds a public office in the public service of the state. The funds of the state government in the accounts of the garnishee are not in the custody or under the control of a public officer. The counsel to the judgment creditors submitted that Section 84 of the Sheriffs and Civil Processes Act does not apply to the peculiar situation of these garnishee proceedings. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that the consent of the Attorney General is required only where the money to be attached by the garnishee proceedings is in the custody or control of a public officer who holds a public office in the public service of the state. The funds of the state government sought to be garnisheed in the accounts of the garnishees are not in the custody or under the control of a public officer. The counsel to the judgment creditors cited the cases of <b>PURIFICATION TECHNIQUES (NIG) LTD vs. A. G. LAGOS STATE</b> in support.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 4pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">The gist of the contention of the 1<sup>st</sup>, 2<sup>nd</sup> and 4<sup>th</sup> judgment debtors and the 1<sup>st</sup> garnishee is that the garnishee proceeding is not competent for not meeting the requirement of Section 84 of the Sheriffs and Civil Processes Act. In view of the response of counsel to the judgment creditors on this issue and the various authorities cited on the issue, it appears to me that the provision of Section 84 Sheriffs and Civil Processes Act calls for examination. The section provides-<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:1.0in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.5in"><b><i><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">“(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. <o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:1.0in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.5in"><b><i><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">(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. <o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify;text-indent:.5in"><b><i><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">(3) In this section, "appropriate officer" means- <o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:1.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.5in"><b><i><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">(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; <o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:1.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.5in"><b><i><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">(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.<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 4pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">From the provision, it appears to me that what the law stipulates is that the consent of the Attorney General is mandatory before an order nisi can be made in garnishee proceedings where the money sought to be attached is in the custody or under the control of a public officer and such public officer must have custody or control of the money in his official capacity. That is to say, where the money to be attached by garnishee proceeding is not in the custody or control of a public officer, or the public officer who has custody of the money held it in his private capacity, the consent of the Attorney General will not be required to be obtained before order nisi is made in a garnishee proceedings. Now, what I should consider in view of this provision is: who has the custody and control of the money sought to be garnisheed in these proceedings, and whether the said person is a public officer. This will determine whether the consent of the Attorney General ought to have been obtained by the judgment creditors before this court made the order nisi.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 4pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">The counsel to the 4<sup>th</sup> judgment debtor, in his reply, put the words “custody” and “control” into construction and further canvassed that the money in the account of the government or any arm of the government is under the control or custody of that government or any of such arm of the government. I do not agree with that view. In my view, it is the person whose hands or possession the money is kept that has custody and control of the money. Particularly, monies kept in bank accounts, whether they belong to private individuals or government, it is the bank that is in custody and control of the money. This view has support in <b>PURIFICATION TECHNIQUES (NIG) LTD vs. A. G. LAGOS STATE (2004) 9 NWLR (Pt.879) 665</b> <b>at 681,<i> </i></b>where it was held that:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.25in;text-align:justify"><b><i><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">“Giving the nature of the relationship between banker and customer and of the contract that exists between them, the customer has neither the custody nor the control of monies standing in his credit with the banker. What the customer possesses is a contractual right to demand repayment of such monies… In my respectful view, I can say that monies in the hands of a garnishee banker are not “in custody or under the control” of the judgment debtor customer. Such monies remain the property in the custody and control of the banker and payable to the judgment debtor until a demand is made.” <o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 4pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">In this case, the monies sought to be garnished are being held in the accounts kept by the garnishees. Notwithstanding that the monies belong to the Government, it is clear from the case of <b>PURIFICATION TECHNIQUES vs. A. G. LAGOS STATE</b> that the monies are in the control and under the custody of the garnishees, Skye Bank and Fidelity Bank. These are commercial banks and not public officers in Imo State Public Service. It is also obvious that the garnishees do not have custody of the money in any official capacity. The case of <b>CBN vs. Hydro Air Pty Ltd</b> has been relied on by counsels to the 4<sup>th</sup> judgment debtor and the 1<sup>st</sup> garnishee in their submissions on this issue. I must say at once that the case is not applicable to the circumstances of these proceedings. The garnishee in that case, the CBN, who had custody of the money to be garnisheed, was held to be a statutory corporation and the monies to be attached were in her custody and control as a public officer. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 4pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">I find that the monies sought to be garnisheed in the instant case, are in the custody and control of the garnishees who do not have the custody and control of the monies in any capacity as public officers or in official capacity. The Court of Appeal in <b>ZENITH BANK PLC vs. URASHI PHARM. LTD (APPEAL NO. CA/J/248/2014)</b> has held that the provision of Section 84(1) of the Sheriffs and Civil Processes Act is inapplicable when the money to be garnisheed is in the custody or control of a commercial bank. I hold, in the circumstance of these garnishee proceedings, that the judgment creditors do not need the consent of the Attorney General of Imo State before the order nisi could be made. Accordingly, I do not see any merit in the contention by the 1<sup>st</sup>, 2<sup>nd</sup> and 4<sup>th</sup> judgment debtors and the 1<sup>st</sup> garnishee that the judgment creditors require the consent of the Attorney General of Imo State to institute the garnishee proceedings.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 4pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">In the motion of the 1<sup>st</sup> and 2<sup>nd</sup> judgment debtors, it was averred in the affidavit in support of same that the 1<sup>st</sup> and 2<sup>nd</sup> judgment debtors were dissatisfied with the judgment of this court delivered on 1/7/2015 and have filed a notice of appeal on 20/8/2015. The notice of appeal and a motion for stay of execution were served on all the parties and the one for the judgment creditors were served on their counsel on 24/8/2015. By a letter dated 13/8/2015, the counsel for the 1<sup>st</sup> and 2<sup>nd</sup> judgment debtors applied to the registrar of this court for compilation of the record of appeal. They have not received any counter affidavit to the motion for stay of execution. The grounds of appeal, which are likely to succeed, are purely on law bordering on issues of lack of fair hearing. The judgment creditors did not disclose to the court the fact that a notice of appeal and a motion for stay of execution have been filed when the court made the order nisi. The court was misled into granting the order nisi. Should the court proceed to make the order absolute, it will foist a situation of helplessness on the Court of Appeal and render its judgment nugatory. This court has the power to preserve and protect the constitutional right of appeal of the judgment debtors/applicants. It was further averred that the purpose of the motion is to maintain the status quo pending appeal. It was also contended that the judgment or order was not served on the Attorney General and Accountant General of Imo State before the garnishee proceedings were commenced. It was averred in the counter affidavit of the judgment creditors that they were not served the notice of appeal and motion for stay of execution allegedly filed by the judgment debtors. The court was not misled when it granted the order nisi and the judgment of the court of appeal will not be rendered nugatory if the order nisi is made absolute. The application by the judgment debtors for stay of execution does not affect a garnishee order of court. One C.U.A Azadialu wrote a letter dated 27/1/2016 to the Attorney General of Imo State informing him of the judgment and payment of sum ordered in the judgment. The letter, which was received by the Attorney General, was annexed as Exhibit B to the counter affidavit.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 4pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">The 1<sup>st</sup> and 2<sup>nd</sup> judgment debtors are seeking an order setting aside the order nisi made on 13/4/2016. Their grouse is that the order was made after a motion for stay of execution has been filed. It was averred in the affidavit in support of the motion that the court was misled into granting the order nisi because the judgment creditors did not disclose to the court the fact that a notice of appeal and a motion for stay of execution have been filed when the court made the order nisi. Although the motion for stay of execution is no longer of any moment having been struck out in this ruling, let me observe however that an application for stay of execution is a different proceedings from garnishee proceedings. See <b>PURIFICATION TECHNIQUE NIG. LTD vs. ATTORNEY GENERAL, LAGOS STATE (SUPRA) at 679</b>. Therefore, notwithstanding the pendency of the motion for stay of execution, garnishee proceedings can still be brought and heard. In <b>DENTON-WEST vs. MUOMA (2008) All FWLR (Pt. 433) 1423 at 1445 </b>GALADIMA JCA (as then was) stated thus-<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify"><b><i><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">“With regards to the applicant’s prayer to set aside the garnishee proceedings, I must observe this. The garnishee proceedings are legitimate exercise of his right to employ auxiliary methods to enforce the judgment obtained in his favour and they are competent notwithstanding the pendency of a motion for stay of execution”<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 4pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">In effect, the pendency of an application for stay of execution of the judgment of this court does not prevent the judgment creditors from instituting garnishee proceedings. Therefore, the order to set aside the garnishee order nisi sought by the judgment debtors has no merit.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 4pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">The 1<sup>st</sup> and 2<sup>nd</sup> judgment debtors also sought an order staying the garnishee proceedings pending determination of the appeal they have filed. The reason for seeking stay of the garnishee proceedings is that appeal has been filed against the judgment on which basis the garnishee proceeding is brought. Besides the fact that the judgment debtors cannot be heard to raise this type of application in garnishee proceedings, I have gone further to examine the facts in support of the application but I found they have not made out a case for stay of the garnishee proceedings. In the first place, garnishee proceedings are different proceedings from the judgment appealed and the proceeding is also a sui generis mode of execution of judgment. That there is an appeal against the judgment does not preclude the judgment creditors from instituting garnishee proceedings or the garnishee proceedings from going on. See <b>SOKOTO STATE GOVERNMENT vs. KANDAX NIG. LTD (2004) 9 NWLR (Pt. 878) 345</b>. Secondly, in an application for stay of proceedings, the applicant must show special circumstance for the grant of the application. See <b>UNITED SPINNERS NIGERIA LTD vs. CHARTERED BANK LTD (2001) 14 NWLR (Pt. 732) 195</b>. In this instance, the judgment debtors have not shown any specific circumstance to warrant staying the garnishee proceedings. The only reason they have advanced is the fact of the appeal they have filed which appeal, I have held, does not prevent the garnishee proceedings from going on. The appeal itself does not constitute special circumstances for staying the garnishee proceedings. In any case, my earlier observation in respect of the motion for stay of execution also applies to this application for stay of the garnishee proceedings. The provision of Order 30, Rule 2 of the rules of this court applies in both applications for stay of execution and stay of proceeding. The judgment debtors have failed to compile the record of appeal within the prescribed period. Consequently, this application for stay of the garnishee proceedings for reason of the appeal filed against the judgment will also go the same way the motion for stay of execution has gone.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 4pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">In Paragraph 11 (h) of the affidavit in support the 1<sup>st</sup> and 2<sup>nd</sup> judgment debtors’ motion filed on 10/5/2016 seeking to set aside the order nisi, it was deposed that the judgment or order was not served on the Attorney General and Accountant General of Imo State before the garnishee proceedings were commenced. In the written address in support of the motion, counsel for the 1<sup>st</sup> and 2<sup>nd</sup> judgment debtors cited Section 8 (1) and (2) of State Proceedings Edict 1994 Laws of Imo State and argued that the court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the garnishee proceedings because the judgment creditors did not fulfil the conditions in the Edict by sending a sealed copy of the judgment to the Attorney General and Accountant General of Imo State. The provision of the Section 8 (1) and (2) of State Proceedings Edict, as quoted in the written address of counsel for the 1<sup>st</sup> and 2<sup>nd</sup> judgment debtors, goes thus:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.75in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.25in;mso-list:l11 level1 lfo12"><!--[if !supportLists]--><b><i><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">(1)<span style="font-style: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-weight: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></i></b><!--[endif]--><b><i><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">Whenever in any such suit an order is made against the Government, no execution shall issue thereof but a copy of such order under the seal of the court shall be transmitted to the Attorney General and the Accountant General respectively and if the order is for the payment of money, the Attorney General Shall by warrant under his hand direct the amount awarded by such order to be paid, and in the case of any other order shall take such measures as may be necessary to cause the same to be carried into effect, or in case he shall think fit, he may direct that any competent appeal shall be entered and prosecuted against any order.<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify"><b><i><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 4pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";"> </span></i></b></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.75in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.25in;mso-list:l11 level1 lfo12"><!--[if !supportLists]--><b><i><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">(2)<span style="font-style: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-weight: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></i></b><!--[endif]--><b><i><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">Nothing in this section shall preclude the judgment creditor from recovering the judgment debt from the Government by way of a garnishee provided that no such proceeding shall be commenced before the expiration of 90 days after the date of the judgment and no appeal has been lodged against the judgment.”<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 4pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">This law was enacted by Imo State and the above section of the law touches on execution of judgment of court. I do not think the above provision of the law will apply to the enforcement of the judgment of this court. It may be applicable to execution of judgments of courts in Imo State established by Laws of the State’s House of Assembly. Let me quickly observe that enforcement of judgment of courts established by Acts of the National Assembly or the Constitution is within the exclusive legislative powers of the National Assembly. See item 57 of the Exclusive Legislative List in part I of the 2<sup>nd</sup> schedule of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 which include <i>“service and execution in a State of the civil and criminal processes, judgments, acts, orders and other decisions of any court of law outside Nigeria or any court of law in Nigeria other than a court of law established by the House of Assembly of that State”</i> as an item in the exclusive legislative list. That is to say, other than a court established by Law of the State House of Assembly, execution of judgment of courts is as regulated by legislations of the National Assembly. Therefore, the execution or enforcement of the judgment of this court, a court established by an Act of the National Assembly, is regulated only by Act of the National Assembly. A law of Imo State, such as the said Edict, will not apply in the matter of execution of the judgment of this court. Consequently, the argument of the counsel for the 1<sup>st</sup> and 2<sup>nd</sup> judgment debtors that the garnishee proceeding is incompetent for non-compliance with the provision of Section 8 (1) and (2) of State Proceedings Edict 1994 Laws of Imo State is discountenanced.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 4pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">Having considered both the competence of the judgment debtors to bring the applications and having also considered the merit of the issues raised in the applications, I find in the result that the judgment debtors’ motions are both incompetent and without merit. The two applications are hereby dismissed.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 4pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">I will now consider the affidavits to show cause filed by the garnishees. The two garnishees served with the order nisi have filed affidavits showing cause. The 1<sup>st</sup> garnishee filed what it titled “counter affidavit” where it was averred that the 1<sup>st</sup> garnishee was served the order nisi on 13<sup>th</sup> April 2016 but the 1<sup>st</sup>, 2<sup>nd</sup> and 3<sup>rd</sup> judgement debtors do not have account with the 1<sup>st</sup> garnishee. Only the 4<sup>th</sup> judgment debtor has an account with the 1<sup>st</sup> garnishee. Attached to Exhibit A is the statement of account of the 4<sup>th</sup> judgment debtor in the 1<sup>st</sup> garnishee bank showing a credit balance of <s>N</s>1,050,00 as at 22<sup>nd</sup> April 2016. In response, the judgment creditors filed an affidavit deposed by the 1<sup>st</sup> judgment creditor, to the effect that that the 1<sup>st</sup> judgment debtor operates an account with the 1<sup>st</sup> garnishee with account number 4030010511 titled “Imo State Government Internally Generated Revenue Account (IGR)” which had a credit balance of about <s>N</s>200,000,000.00. It was further deposed that the 1<sup>st</sup> garnishee failed to disclose this fact with intent to deceive the court and subvert the course of justice. The judgment debt can be offset from this sum standing in the favour of the judgment debtors which is in the possession of the 1<sup>st</sup> garnishee. In another affidavit titled “further counter affidavit” the 1<sup>st</sup> garnishee averred that the 1<sup>st</sup> judgment debtor in this suit is the Governor of Imo State who does not maintain an account with the 1<sup>st</sup> garnishee. The said account referred to by the judgment creditor in the affidavit belongs to the Government of Imo State which Government of Imo State is not a party to this suit.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 4pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">In the judgment creditors affidavit and the 1<sup>st</sup> garnishee’s “further Counter affidavit”, it is clear to me that there is an account number 4030010511 in the name of Imo State Government Internally Generated Revenue Account having a credit balance of about <s>N</s>200,000,000.00 domiciled in the 1<sup>st</sup> garnishee bank. The 1<sup>st</sup> garnishee did admit the existence of the account in paragraph 5 (iv) of the said further counter affidavit and nowhere did it deny or dispute the sum alleged to be contained in the account. The 1<sup>st</sup> garnishee’s contention however is that the account does not belong to any of the judgment debtors but to the Government of Imo State who is not a party to the case. The counsel to the 1<sup>st</sup> garnishee argued extensively that Government of Imo State includes all the three arm of government which is different from the Governor of the State. He submitted further that since the Government was not party to the case, the sum in the joint account of the three arms cannot be garnisheed in settlement of a judgment debt of one of the arms. In resolving this issue, let me mention that the 1<sup>st</sup> judgment debtor in this case is the Governor of Imo State. The account in question is in the name of Imo State Government. The question thus arising from the contention of the 1<sup>st</sup> garnishee is what is the relationship between Government of a state and the Governor of the state?<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 4pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">Section 176 of the 1999 Constitution provides that there shall be for each State of the Federation a Governor who shall be the Chief Executive of that State. Let us go back to Section 5 (2) 1999 Constitution which provides-<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify"><b><i><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">“Subject to the provisions of this Constitution, the executive powers of a State- <o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:54.75pt;text-align:justify;text-indent: -18.75pt;mso-list:l3 level1 lfo13"><!--[if !supportLists]--><b><i><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">(a)<span style="font-style: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-weight: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></i></b><!--[endif]--><b><i><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">shall be vested in the Governor of that State … and <o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:54.75pt;text-align:justify"><b><i><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 4pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";"> </span></i></b></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify"><b><i><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">(b) shall extend to the execution and maintenance of this Constitution, all laws made by the House of Assembly of the State and to all matters with respect to which the House of Assembly has for the time being power to make laws.<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 4pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">The import of these provisions is that the Governor, being the Chief Executive of the state exercises power and authority on behalf of the state, including execution and maintenance of the provisions of the Constitution, all laws made by the House of Assembly of the State and all matters with respect to which the House of Assembly has power to make laws. Then Section 318 of Constitution went on to define the meaning of “Government” to <b><i>include the Government of the Federation, or of any State, or of a local government council <u>or any person who exercises power or authority on its behalf”.</u> </i></b>It is clear in<b><i> </i></b>Sections 5 (2) and 176 of the 1999 Constitution that the powers and authority of a State is exercised on its behalf by the Governor of the State. Section 318 has now cleared any doubt as to the relationship between Government of the State and the Governor of the State. The Governor of a State is not separable from the Government of the State. In my view, they are one and the same. In that case, an account in the name of the Government of Imo State cannot be said not to belong to the Governor of the State. Therefore, the contention of the 1<sup>st</sup> garnishee’s that the said account, which is in the name of the Government of Imo State, does not belong to any of the judgment debtors is lame and does not hold any water.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 4pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">On the other hand, in the 2<sup>nd</sup> garnishee’s affidavit to show cause, it was averred that the 2<sup>nd</sup> garnishee was served the order nisi on 20/4/2016 to show cause why the order Nisi should not be made absolute. The 2<sup>nd</sup> garnishee conducted a random check on its data base and confirmed that the 1<sup>st</sup>, 2<sup>nd</sup> and 4<sup>th</sup> judgment debtors do not maintain account with the 2<sup>nd</sup> garnishee. Only the 3<sup>rd</sup> judgment debtor has an account with the 2<sup>nd</sup> garnishee with a credit balance of <s>N</s>35,654.50 as at 20/4/2016 when the order nisi was served on the 2<sup>nd</sup> garnishee. The judgment debtors do not have accounts with the garnishee having sufficient funds to satisfy the judgment sum. The attached Exhibit NK1 is the statement of account of the 3<sup>rd</sup> judgment debtor in the 2<sup>nd</sup> garnishee bank disclosing a credit balance of <s>N</s>35,654.50 as at 29/3/2016. In response, the judgment creditors filed an affidavit of the 1<sup>st</sup> judgment creditor where he deposed that the 1<sup>st</sup> judgment debtor has an account number 5030062113 with the 2<sup>nd</sup> garnishee at its Ikenegbu branch. This account, titled “Imo State Government Bailout account”, has a credit balance of about <s>N</s>20,000,000,000.00, which sum can offset the money standing in the favour of the judgment debtors which is in the possession of the 2<sup>nd</sup> garnishee. The 2<sup>nd</sup> garnishee refused to disclose this information to the court with intent to deceive the court and subvert the course of justice. The 2<sup>nd</sup> garnishee reacted by a further affidavit where it was admitted that the judgment debtors have an account number 5030062113 with the 2<sup>nd</sup> garnishee but the credit balance of the account as at 20<sup>th</sup> April 2016 was N101,281,887.40. The statement of account was attached as Exhibit NK1. It was further averred on behalf of the 2<sup>nd</sup> garnishee that as at the time the order nisi was served on the 2<sup>nd</sup> garnishee, the judgment debtors, Imo State Government and its parastatals and agencies, were however indebted to the 2<sup>nd</sup> garnishee to the tune of the sum of <s>N</s>6,591,480,000. This was the outstanding balance of the account as at the time the order nisi was served on the 2<sup>nd</sup> garnishee. The 2<sup>nd</sup> garnishee is not in any way indebted to the judgment debtors but the judgment creditors are indebted to the 2<sup>nd</sup> garnishee in respect of account number 093361010000028 whose statement of account attached as Exhibited NKII shows that the judgment debtors are indebted to the 2<sup>nd</sup> garnishee to the tune of <s>N</s>6,591,480,000. The credit balance of the judgment debtors in the sum of <s>N</s>101,281,887.40 when subtracted from their debt to the 2<sup>nd</sup> garnishee leaves the sum of <s>N</s>6,490,198,112.6 as the outstanding debt to the 2<sup>nd</sup> garnishee as at the time the order nisi was served on the 2<sup>nd</sup> garnishee. It was further averred on behalf of the 2<sup>nd</sup> garnishee that it can use part of the sum in credit to offset the debt owed to her by the judgment debtors as an interested 3<sup>rd</sup> party. It was explained that the reason for the discrepancy in the earlier affidavit to show cause was that the accounts of the judgment debtors have not been consolidated. Attached to the further affidavit are Exhibit NK1 and NKII. Exhibit NKI is statement of account number 5030062113 in the name of Imo State Government. The entry in the account on 20/4/2016 shows a credit balance of <s>N</s>101,697,075,140.00. Exhibit NKII is another account of Imo State Government in the 2<sup>nd</sup> garnishee bank with account number 093361010000028. It has a debit balance of <s>N</s>6,591,480,000.00<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 4pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">The 2<sup>nd</sup> garnishee has admitted that it has custody of account number 5030062113 belonging to the judgment debtors which has the sum of <s>N</s>101,281,887.40 in it. The Statement of the account, Exhibit NKI, clearly shows that the judgment debtors have this sum in the account as at the date the order nisi was served on the 2<sup>nd</sup> garnishee. The contention of the 2<sup>nd</sup> garnishee is however that the judgment debtors are also indebted to her to the tune of <s>N</s>6,591,480,000 which sum she wants the court to permit her to use to offset part of the indebtedness of the judgment debtors. The counsel to the 2<sup>nd </sup>garnishee cited the cases of <b>Obafemi Awolowo University vs. Olanihun; Fidelity Bank vs. Okwuowulu; Finbank vs. Glory Effiong</b> and some decisions of the Enugu Division of this court in support of his argument that the 2<sup>nd</sup> garnishee is entitled to a right of lien or set off on the money of the judgment debtor in her custody. Although I agree with the counsel to the 2<sup>nd</sup> garnishee and the authorities cited by him to the extent that in appropriate situations, a garnishee may be entitled to set off or lien on the money of the judgment debtor in its custody, in this matter however, the 2<sup>nd</sup> garnishee has not satisfied this court of the authenticity of the alleged indebtedness of the judgment debtors to warrant her being permitted a right of lien or set off on the money. The 2<sup>nd</sup> garnishee merely stated that the judgment debtors are indebted to her to the tune of <s>N</s>6,591,480,000 without giving particulars of the transaction resulting to the debt or any fact showing how the debt arose. The 2<sup>nd</sup> garnishee simply exhibited a statement of account, Exhibit NKII, which contains a single entry showing a debt balance of <s>N</s>6,591,480,000. The statement of account has no entries to explain the debt or how or on what date it accrued. Secondly, the account embodying the debt is different from the account having the funds sought to be garnished. The 2<sup>nd</sup> garnishee did not even explain if the alleged debt arose from the same transaction as the account or money sought to be garnisheed. In this circumstance, I have not been satisfied that the 2<sup>nd</sup> garnishee is entitled to a right of lien or set off on the monies of the judgment debtors in her custody on account of any alleged debt owed to her by the judgment debtors.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 4pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">In the result, none of the garnishees has shown any reasonable and acceptable cause why the order nisi should not be made absolute. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 4pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">The 1<sup>st</sup> garnishee has not denied the fact that account number 4030010511 belonging to the Imo State Government has a credit balance of <s>N</s>200,000,000. I will therefore take it to be true that there is the sum of <s>N</s>200,000,000 in the account. The 2<sup>nd</sup> garnishee, on her part, has disclosed that as at the date the order nisi was served on her, the judgment debtors have the sum of <s>N</s>101,281,887.40 in account number 5030062113. In the motion exparte filed by the judgment creditors, they calculated the total sum to be garnisheed to be the sum of <s>N</s>98,149,616.00. I recall that the judgment of this court was for the judgment debtors to calculate the salaries and allowances due to the judgment creditors and pay same to the judgment creditors. I understand from the application that it was not done, hence the computation by the judgment creditors. I have no reason to tamper with the figure arrived at by the judgment creditors.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 4pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">The garnishee order nisi is hereby made absolute. The garnishees shall jointly pay the judgment debt from the money of the judgment debtors in the custody of their banks. Consequently, the 1<sup>st</sup> garnishee (Skye Bank Plc.) is hereby ordered to pay the sum of <b><s>N</s>50,000,000.00 (Fifty Million Naira)</b> from the money of the judgment debtors in her custody to the judgment creditors through this court. The 2<sup>nd</sup> garnishee (Fidelity Bank Plc.) is hereby ordered to pay the sum of <b><s>N</s>48,149,616 (Forty Eight Million, One Hundred and Forty Nine Thousand, Six Hundred and Sixteen Naira)</b> from the money of the judgment debtors in her custody to the judgment creditor through this court. The payments hereby ordered must be made within 14 days from today. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 4pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">No order as to cost.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 4pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">Ruling is entered accordingly.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><b><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 13pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">Hon. Justice O. Y. Anuwe<o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">Judge<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><br></p>