Download PDF
Following the garnishee nisi order granted by the court on 23/1/2017, the garnishee absolute hearing was heard on 3/7/2017. Upon the application of learned senior counsel for the judgment creditors, the court discharged the 2nd, 3rd, 5th, 8th, 9th, 10th, 11th, 12th, 15th, 16th, 17th and 18th Garnishees from these proceedings. This ruling is therefore premised upon the garnishee proceedings as it affects the 1st, 4th, 6th, 7th, 13th and 14th garnishees, as well as an application filed by the Judgment Debtors on the 13th day of February 2017. On 7/2/2017, the 6th Garnishee’s counsel filed a motion pursuant to Section 83 of the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act and Order 52(4) of the National Industrial Court Rules, and sought an order of court discharging the 6th Garnishee from further liabilities in these proceedings. The motion was supported by a 15-paragraph affidavit showing cause. In the accompanying written address, counsel submitted on the authority of Section 83 of the Sheriff and Civil Process Act, that the garnishee order is aimed at ordering the garnishee to pay over to the garnishor the amount due to the judgment debtor in satisfaction of the judgment debt. See UBA vs. BONEY MARCUS LTD (2005) 48 WRN 55 at 68-9. Furthermore, counsel submitted that the debt in existence is N7,222,156.77 (Seven Million, Two Hundred and Twenty-Two Thousand, One Hundred and Fifty-Six Naira, Seventy-Seven Kobo), having set off the sum of N35,000.00 which debt had accrued prior to the Order Nisi. Counsel relied on the English case of HALE vs. VICTORIA PLUMBING LTD (1966) 2 QB 746, and argued that the 6th garnishee is entitled to set-off any debt due at the date when the order nisi was served upon it. Counsel urged the court to hold that the only sum due from the 6th Garnishee to the judgment creditors is N7,222,156.77 (Seven Million, Two Hundred and Twenty-Two Thousand, One Hundred and Fifty-Six Naira, Seventy-Seven Kobo). The 1st garnishee on 7/2/2017 filed an 11 paragraph affidavit to show cause, deposed to by one Miss Ogechi Anumodu. The 4th Garnishee on 7/2/2017 filed a 9-paragraph affidavit to show cause, deposed to by one John Bosco Ohaneje. On 6/2/2017, the 7th Garnishee filed a 9 paragraph affidavit to show cause, deposed to by one Osuji Okechukwu a legal practitioner in the 7th Garnishee counsel’s Law Office. The 13th Garnishee filed an affidavit of 11 paragraphs on 6/2/2017 deposed to by Caleb Egonu, a relationship manager employed in the Mbari Street branch of the 13th Garnishor. Also, Chinaka Enyi, the principal Solicitor of the 14th Garnishee, deposed to an affidavit of 6 paragraphs to show cause on 6/2/2017. In addition, on 22/3/2017, the judgment creditors filed a further affidavit of 15 paragraphs deposed to by the 45th judgment creditor Sir Roy Iwuala. In the Reply on points of Law, counsel submitted that it is settled law that a garnishee is bound to make full disclosure of facts about the credit status of the judgment debtor. See OCEANIC BANK vs. OLADEPO (2013) 3 WRN 74 and CITIZEN BANK vs. SCOA LTD (2006) All FWLR (Pt. 323) 1680. Counsel argued that the garnishees have failed to disclose all the various accounts held by the judgment debtors, and cannot be considered to have shown cause as ordered by the court. According to counsel, the affidavits filed by the garnishees offend the provisions of the Evidence Act and they exhibited statements of account that do not contain material entries, making them of no evidential value. Similarly, counsel is of the view that the statements of the Imo State Governor in various newspapers exhibited indicate that no monies were borrowed from banks, a fact that was not controverted by the 15th garnishee. Counsel urged the court to invoke the provision of section 167 of the Evidence Act and hold that the garnishees failed to make disclosures, and such disclosures if produced would be unfavourable to the garnishees. Counsel urged the court to proceed and make the garnishee order nisi absolute in line with suit no: NICN/OW/18/2013 PAUL OGUJIOFOR vs. GOVERNOR OF IMO & ORS delivered on 9/1/2017. Counsel to the judgment creditors in his oral submission in this regard stated that the garnishees in their affidavits have not shown cause why an absolute order should not be made against them. He made reference to the Court of Appeal’s decision in the case of GOVERNOR OF IMO STATE vs. ATHANASIUS OGO CA/OW/386/2014 delivered on 13/11/2015, and urged the court to make the order nisi absolute. On 31/3/2017, the 7th Garnishee filed an 8-paragraph Reply to the judgment creditor’s further affidavit. Similarly, the 1st garnishee on 26/4/2017 filed a further affidavit of 6 paragraphs deposed to by one Miss Angela Joseph, a litigation secretary in the 1st Garnishee Counsel’s office. John Bosco Ohaneje also deposed to a further affidavit of 7 paragraphs on behalf of the 4th garnishee. A 14-paragraph further affidavit was deposed to by C. E. Atasie on behalf of the 6th Garnishee on 19/4/2017. Caleb Egonu deposed to a further affidavit of 8 paragraphs on 3/4/2017 on behalf of the 13th Garnishee. On 21/4/2017, Chinaka Enyi deposed to a further affidavit of 6 paragraphs on behalf of the 14th garnishee. On 19th June 2017, the 13th Garnishee’s counsel filed a motion on notice pursuant to Order 17(1) of the NICN Rules and Section 87 of the Sheriff and Civil Process Act, for an order striking out the order nisi made by the Court on 23/1/16 and discharging the 13th Garnishee from these proceedings. A supporting affidavit of 7 paragraphs deposed to by Caleb Egonu was filed alongside. In the accompanying written address, one issue was identified for determination, thus: Are there legal reasons why the court should not make absolute its order nisi in exhibit UBA? Counsel argued that there are reasons why the order nisi in these proceedings should not be made absolute. Firstly, counsel submitted that a garnishee proceeding can only arise from a case that was properly initiated and served, and in the present case the judgment creditors did not activate the court’s jurisdiction because Form 26 was not served in pursuance to the mandatory provisions of Section 83(1) of the Sheriff and Civil Process Act and Order VIII, Rule 3(2) of the Judgment Enforcement Rules, which makes the proceedings fundamentally defective, and gives an aggrieved party the right to have the judgment set aside. See the cases of: 1. REGISTERED TRUSTEES OF UGBORODO COMMUNITY vs. OJOGOR (2014) LPELR -23333 (CA) 18. 2. AMAECHI vs. INEC(2008) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1080) 227 at 256 3. AUTO IMPORT-EXPORT v ADEBAYO (2002) 103 LRCN 2397 at 2417. Furthermore, counsel reasoned that since Form 26 is what confers jurisdiction on the court, the non-service of it in the extant case robs the court of the jurisdiction to hear the proceedings. Counsel drew the court’s attention to the case of EKE vs. OGBONDA (2007) 144 LRCN 319 at 413, where the Supreme Court held that where the court as constituted lacks the competence to hear a particular case, its decision is considered a nullity and the same court can set it aside. Counsel contended further that the order nisi in this case is “grossly inadequate” to satisfy the requirements of the law relating to Form 26. In the same vein, counsel argued that Order VIII, Rule 3(2) of the Judgment Enforcement Rules, provides that Form 26 is to be served as an ordinary summons that contains the name and address of the counsel issuing it. Counsel further submitted that for the duration the garnishee order nisi remains in force, the 13th garnishee cannot seek business from the judgment debtors, and so for losing business, counsel asked for N50,000 cost to the applicant. In conclusion, counsel urged the court to hold that it lacks the jurisdiction to make the nisi order absolute, and there is no justification in keeping the 13th garnishee involved in the proceedings. On 13/2/2017 the judgment debtors filed an application, and sought for the following reliefs: 1. An order discharging the garnishee proceedings conducted and garnishee order nisi made in this case on the 23rd day of January 2017. 2. An order dismissing the application to make the order judicial process. The application was supported by a 12-paragraph affidavit deposed to by Bruno Nwachukwu. In the accompanying written address, counsel adopted one issue for determination as follows: Whether the defendants/judgment debtors have made out a case to justify the grant of this application. In arguing the first issue, counsel stated that the judgment debtors is a vital and necessary party to a garnishee proceeding as indicated by the requirement for service in Section 83(1) and (2) of the Sheriff and Civil Process Act. According to counsel, this statute is clear on the mandatoriness of service on the judgment debtor. See NASS vs. CCJ LTD (2008) 5NWLR (Pt. 1081) 519 and STB LTD vs. CONTRACT RESOURCES LTD (2001) 6 NWLR (Pt. 708) 115. Counsel also referred to the case of WEMA BANK vs. BRASTEM-STERR LTD (2011) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1242) 58 at 80, where the Court of Appeal held that under Section 83(2) of the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act, order nisi must be served with the originating process or any other order affecting the interest of the judgment debtor. Service of mandatory process is fundamental to the jurisdiction of the court. He submitted that the failure of service of the decree nisi on the judgment debtors vitiates the garnishee proceedings. Furthermore, counsel contended that there is a pending motion for stay of execution at the Court of Appeal in this matter, which indicates that there is a continuation of trial as decided in FIRST BANK & ANOR v. FIRST CITY MONUMENT BANK PLC & ANOR (2013) LPELR-22050 (CA) and LOCAL GOVERNMENT SERVICE COMMISSION EKITI STATE & ANOR vs. JEGEDE (2013) LPELR-21131(CA). Counsel argued that the execution of this judgment will paralyze the exercise of the judgment debtor’s right to appeal and the judgment creditors would be unable to refund the judgment debt if the appeal succeeds. In the same vein, counsel submitted that Order VIII, Rule 7(1) of the Judgment Enforcement Rules provide that an execution against a garnishee under Section 86 of the Sheriff and Civil Process Act shall be by writ of execution in Form 27. It is counsel’s view that in view of a pending application for stay of execution in a superior court, a party cannot execute the judgment in a garnishee proceeding. See AM & CO (NIG) LTD vs. VOLKSWAGEN LTD (2012) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1312) 405. In conclusion, counsel urged the court to consider the foregoing submissions and resolve the issue in the affirmative and discharge the garnishee order nisi. While addressing the court, learned Attorney General as counsel for the judgment debtors, challenged the competence of the application of the judgment creditors on the ground that Section 84 of the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act was not complied with. According to counsel, even though this line of argument is not contained in the written address, as at the time the order nisi was made, there was a pending application for stay of execution. It was therefore improper for the court to make the garnishee nisi order. The learned A.G. reiterated that non-service of the garnishee nisi order on the Judgment Debtor nullifies the proceedings. He urged the court to set aside the garnishee nisi order, having been made without jurisdiction. In opposition, the judgment debtors on 31/3/2017 filed a counter affidavit of 9 paragraphs deposed to by Kalu Uduma. In the supporting written address, counsel distilled the following issues for determination: 1. Whether the application for discharge of the garnishee order filed by the judgment debtor is competent. 2. Whether the judgment debtors have made out a case for the discharge of the garnishee order nisi. Counsel argued both issues together and began by stating that while the garnishee proceedings flows from the judgment that pronounced the debt owing, the judgment debtor is a total stranger to the garnishee proceedings and cannot be heard on it. Counsel relied on the decision in UBA vs. EKANEM (2010) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1190) 207 at 226 in support of his argument. Consequently, counsel submitted that the application for discharge of the garnishee order is incompetent because the judgment debtors lack the locus to challenge the garnishee order nisi made by the Court. Again, counsel contended that garnishee proceedings are a legitimate exercise of a party’s right to employ auxiliary methods to enforce the judgment obtained in his favour and are competent irrespective of a pending stay of execution. Counsel referred to the case of PURIFICATION TECHNIQUES LTD vs. A.G. LAGOS STATE (2004) 9 NWLR (Pt. 879) 665 at 678, where it was held that the existence of an application seeking for an order staying execution of judgment does not preclude a judgment creditor from seeking to use some other legal method to enforce judgment. Therefore, it is the opinion of counsel that the judgment debtors counsel’s assertions on a pending motion are not sufficient grounds for the discharge of a garnishee order nisi at the instance of a judgment debtor. Similarly, counsel contended that there is unchallenged affidavit evidence that the judgment debtors did not seek and obtain the leave of the Court of Appeal before appealing against the judgment of this court, making any such appeal invalid and incompetent. In conclusion, counsel urged the court to dismiss the application for lacking in merit. While addressing the court, learned senior counsel for the Judgment Creditors submitted that the Judgment Debtor did not raise the issue relating to Section 84 of the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act as a ground for bringing this application. They cannot therefore at this stage, expand the grounds for bringing their application. According to counsel, in their written address, they made no reference to the said Section 84, therefore they cannot adumbrate on an issue not contained in their written address. Assuming without conceding that it was raised, it is the submission of learned silk for the judgment creditors that the said Section 84 does not avail the Judgment Debtors. According to counsel, the garnishees in question are commercial banks. The monies sought to be attached cannot be said to be in custody or possession of a public officer, so the Attorney General’s consent is not needed in line with the decision in CBN vs. BOB KAY NJEMANZE (2015) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1449) 276. It is Counsel’s further submission that the Judgment Debtors have failed to present before court materials upon which to act in respect of this application. They failed to annex a certified true copy of their application to the Court of Appeal for leave to appeal against the decision of this court. They have failed to exhibit a Notice of Appeal showing that they have appealed. The court cannot speculate on such documents. Counsel pointed out that this court had earlier heard and dismissed the Judgment Debtors’ application for stay of execution, and therefore there is no impediment to the right of the Judgment Creditor to proceed against them. On the A.G’s reference to the case of NIGERIAN BREWERIES vs. DUMUJE (2016) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1515) 536, learned counsel stated that the Court of Appeal in that case, made it clear that they ought to file an application that an appeal has been lodged at the Court of Appeal. He urged the court to dismiss the application for lacking in merit. In his further verbal submission, the learned Attorney General stated that his objection on the grounds of Section 84 is an issue that goes to jurisdiction and therefore it can be raised at any time, even viva voce. He also submitted that the monies in the banks are under the control of public officers. He said that a notice of appeal was filed along with the motion for stay that was heard by this court, and that the pending motion at the court of Appeal was served upon the Deputy Sheriff of this court, even though he could not ascertain when it was served. COURT’S DECISION I will first consider the motion filed by the judgment debtors. The judgment debtors are seeking in their motion filed on 13th February 2017 two orders. On 3/7/2017, the learned A.G applied to withdraw the 2nd relief. That relief is hereby struck out. That leaves only the 1st relief which is for an order of this Court discharging the garnishee order nisi made by the Court on the 23rd January 2017. In the affidavit in support of the motion, Bruno Nwachukwu deposed that after the judgment was given on 13/1/2016, the judgment debtors applied for leave to appeal against the judgment and they also filed a motion for stay of execution on 17/2/2016. The judgment creditors’ motion ex parte in the garnishee proceedings was filed on 26/2/2016. The judgment debtors also filed a motion in the Court of Appeal, Owerri Division on 28/7/2016 for stay of execution and the motion, which has been served on the judgment creditors, is still pending. It was also deposed that the garnishee order nisi was not served on the judgment debtors. The garnishee proceeding is incompetent and making the garnishee order absolute will render the appeal as well as the application in the Court for Appeal for stay of execution nugatory. It was also averred that the judgment creditors will vanish with the judgment sum if they are allowed to execute the judgment vide garnishee proceeding. In the counter affidavit of the judgment creditors deposed by Kalu Uduma Esq., it was averred that the judgment debtors have not appealed against the decision of this court delivered on 13/1/2016. The judgment debtors did not seek and obtain the leave of this court or of the Court of Appeal to appeal against the said decision. It is also stated that the judgment debtors have no locus standi to make the instant application and the application is a ploy to frustrate the garnishee proceedings. From the grounds of the motion of the judgment debtors and the affidavit in support of the motion, the following are the reasons they sought the orders in their motion: 1. The Judgment debtors were not served with the Garnishee Order Nisi. 2. There are pending appeals in the Court of appeal against the judgment and a ruling of this court and also a pending motion for stay of execution before the Court of Appeal. The judgment debtors have alleged that they were not served the Garnishee Order Nisi. The learned Counsel for the judgment debtors argued in the written address in support of the motion that the provisions of Section 83 of the Sheriff and Civil Process Act require compulsory service of the garnishee order nisi on the judgment debtors. According to counsel, non-service of the garnishee order nisi on the judgment debtors renders the garnishee proceeding a nullity. Section 83 (2) of the of the Sheriff and Civil Process Act provides that a copy of the order nisi shall be served upon the garnishee and on the judgment debtor at least fourteen days before the day of hearing. The judgment debtors have now claimed that they were not served the Order Nisi as required by law. The document in page 759 of the record of this matter is a notice addressed to the Hon. Attorney-General of Imo State, a judgment debtor, whose address is stated to be at the Ministry of Justice, Owerri, Imo State. The document shows that a copy of the Order Nisi dated 23rd January 2017 was forwarded to the Hon. A.Gs office. The notice was received by one Nwachukwu Bruno on 10/2/2017. There is also the bailiff’s affidavit of service sworn on 6/3/2017 stating that on 10/2/2017, a copy of the Order Nisi dated 23/1/2017 was served on the judgment debtors through the Hon. Attorney General, Ministry of Justice Owerri. During the substantive suit, the judgment debtors were represented by counsels from the office of the Attorney-General of Imo State. Besides the fact that the A.G. is a party to the suit, he is also the counsel to the judgment debtors in the suit and in these proceedings. It is trite that service of a process in a proceeding on counsel for a party is deemed as service on the party. Therefore, service of the Order Nisi on the A.G. is service on the judgment debtors. In view of the affidavit of service deposed to by the bailiff of this court, I hold that the judgment debtors were duly served with the Order Nisi made on 23/5/2017. Now there is the question whether the order nisi was served on the judgment debtors at least 14 days before the hearing of the garnishee proceedings. The judgment debtors were served with the garnishee order nisi on 10/2/2017 while the garnishee proceeding was heard on 3/7/2017. It is clear that the judgment debtors were served the order nisi more than 14 days before the garnishee proceeding was heard. The provision of Section 83 (2) of the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act had been duly complied by the judgment creditors. I find no merit on this aspect of the motion. The 2nd issue raised by the judgment debtors is that there are pending appeals in the Court of Appeal with respect to this matter as well as a pending motion for stay of execution before the Court of Appeal. It is trite that the fact of a pending appeal does not preclude the judgment creditor from enforcing the judgment unless there is an order of court restraining the judgment creditor from enforcing the judgment. Therefore, the said appeals filed by the judgment debtors cannot in themselves preclude the judgment creditors from instituting garnishee proceedings. As there is no pending order staying execution, the appeals do not amount to impediment to these garnishee proceedings. See SOKOTO STATE GOVERNMENT vs. KANDAX NIG. LTD (2004) 9 NWLR (Pt. 878) 345. Similarly, it has been held that notwithstanding the pendency of the motion for stay of execution, garnishee proceedings can still be brought and heard. In DENTON-WEST vs. MUOMA (2008) All FWLR (Pt.433) 1423 at 1445 GALADIMA JCA (as then was) stated thus- “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” See also PURIFICATION TECHNIQUES NIG. LTD vs. ATTORNEY GENERAL, LAGOS STATE (2004) 9 NWLR (Pt.879) 665 at 679. Therefore, the pendency of an appeal or application for stay of execution of the judgment of this court does not prevent the judgment creditors from instituting garnishee proceedings. When the Learned A.G. was arguing the motion on 3/7/2017, he added that the garnishee proceeding is not competent for non-compliance with the provision of Section 84 of the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act. This point canvassed by the learned A.G. was not raised in the motion. The learned SAN for the judgment creditors urged the court, in his response, to discountenance the issue raised by the learned A.G orally on Section 84 of the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act because it was not a ground of the application. In my view, the provision of Section 84 of the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act is a matter of jurisdiction and it is material to garnishee proceedings. I think it can be raised orally during the hearing of a garnishee proceeding. I will allow the A.G. to raise the issue viva voce. Section 84 of the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act provides: (1) Where money liable to be attached by garnishee proceedings is in the custody or under the control of a public officer in his official capacity or in custodia legis, the order nisi shall not be made under the provisions of the last preceding section unless consent to such attachment is first obtained from the appropriate officer in the case of money in the custody or control of a public officer or of the court in the case of money in custodia legis, as the case may be. (2) In such cases the order of notice must be served on such public officer or on the registrar of the court, as the case may be. (3) In this section, "appropriate officer" means- (a) in relation to money which is in the custody of a public officer who holds a public office in the public service of the Federation, the Attorney-General of the Federation; (b) in relation to money which is in the custody of a public officer who holds a public office in the public service of the State, the Attorney-General of the State. It appears to me that the contention of the learned A.G. is that the monies standing to the credit of the judgment debtors in the Garnishee banks are monies in the custody and control of a public officer, and the consent of the Attorney-General of Imo State has not been sought or obtained before the order nisi was made. In his response, the learned Senior Advocate for the judgment creditors submitted that the garnishees are commercial banks, as such, the monies cannot be said to be in the custody or possession of a public officer. The senior counsel referred this court to an earlier decision of this court on the point in PAUL OGUJIOFOR vs. GOV. OF IMO STATE & ORS NICN/OW/18/2013 delivered on 9/1/2017 and the case of C.B.N vs. BOB KAY NJEMANZE (2015) 4 NWLR (Pt.1449) 276. The above provisions of Section 84 of the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act stipulate that the consent of the Attorney General is mandatory before an order nisi can be made in a garnishee proceeding 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 proceedings 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 an order nisi is made in a garnishee proceeding. The questions to be determined at this stage is whether the funds kept in the garnishee banks are monies in the custody and control of a public officer. This will resolve the issue as to whether the consent of the Attorney General ought to have been obtained by the judgment creditors before this court made the order nisi. The key words in the section are “custody” and “control”. In my view, money is in the custody and control of the person in whose hands or possession the money is kept. 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 PURIFICATION TECHNIQUES (NIG) LTD vs. A. G. LAGOS STATE (supra) at 681, where it was held that: “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.” See also C.B.N vs. BOB KAY NJEMANZE (supra) and ZENITH BANK PLC vs. URASHI PHARM. LTD (APPEAL NO. CA/J/248/2014) where it was held that the provision of Section 84(1) of the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act is inapplicable when the money to be garnished is in the custody or control of a commercial bank. 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 Imo State Government, it is not in doubt that the monies are in the control and under the custody of the garnishee banks. 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. 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. In view of all the foregoing, I find no merit in the application of the judgment debtors. They have not shown any serious or cogent reason to warrant this court to discharge the garnishee order nisi made on the 23rd January 2017. The motion is hereby dismissed. The judgment sum which the judgment creditors wish to recover in these garnishee proceedings is the sum of N190,030,516.66 and 10% interest per annum thereon awarded to them by this court on 13/1/2016. The accrued interest on the judgment sum from 13/2/2016 to 13/9/2017 is the sum of N30,008,165.16. Added to the principal makes a total of N220,118,681.82 due to the judgment creditors. The garnishee Order Nisi was directed at 18 garnishees but on 3/7/2017, the learned senior counsel for the judgment creditors applied that the 2nd, 3rd, 5th, 8th, 9th, 10th, 11th, 12th, 15th, 16th, 17th and 18th garnishees be discharged. They were accordingly discharged from the proceedings. The remaining garnishees, which are the 1st, 4th, 6th, 7th, 13th and 14th garnishees, filed their respective affidavits to show cause. The 1st garnishee disclosed a credit balance of N1,354,452.84 in account number 0005518821 of the 1st judgment debtor. In a further affidavit filed by the 1st garnishee, a credit balance in the sum of N17,103,521.49 is disclosed in the 1st judgment debtor’s account number 0696903812. The total funds of the judgment debtors disclosed by the 1st garnishee to be its custody is the sum of N18,457,974.33. In the further affidavit of the 4th garnishee and in the statement of account number 0839706075 exhibited to the affidavit, a credit balance of N3,167,975.48 is disclosed in the account linked to the 4th judgment debtor. The 6th garnishee disclosed a credit balance in the sum of N7,222,156.77 in account number 2005152070 of the 1st judgment debtor in its affidavit and in its further affidavit, a further sum of N44,973,696.58 is disclosed in account number 2028448811 of the 1st defendant. The total funds of the judgment debtors disclosed by the 6th garnishee to be its custody is the sum of N52,195,853.35. The 7th garnishee, in its further affidavit, disclosed a credit balance in the sum of N46,636,588.53 in the account number 0175791559 belonging to the 1st judgment debtor. In the further affidavit of the 13th garnishee, the credit balance of N59,752,011.98 is disclosed in account number 1019164440 belonging to the 1st judgment debtor. The 14th garnishee disclosed in its further affidavit an account number 00451778633 belonging to the 1st judgment debtor with a credit balance of N27,896,247.34 These garnishees have not shown any cause in their affidavits why the order nisi should not be made absolute with respect to the sums of the judgment debtors disclosed in the mentioned accounts. The garnishee order nisi is hereby made absolute with respect to the above sums disclosed in the stated accounts in the 1st, 4th, 6th, 7th, 13th and 14th garnishee banks. For the avoidance of doubt, the following sums (with details outlined above) are hereby garnisheed: 1. 1st Garnishee (Access Bank): N18,457,974.33 2. 4th Garnishee (FCMB): N3,167,975.48 3. 6th Garnishee (First Bank): N52,195, 853.35 4. 7th Garnishee (GT Bank): N46,636,588.53 5. 13th Garnishee (UBA): N59,752,011.98 6. 14th Garnishee (Union Bank): N27,896,247.34 The above sums as allocated, totaling N208,106,651.10 are hereby garnisheed. It is hereby ordered that the sums must be paid by the respective banks over to the judgment creditors through this court. The payments hereby ordered must be made within 14 days from today. No order as to cost. Ruling is entered accordingly. Hon. Justice O. Y. Anuwe Judge