Download PDF
This court granted an Order in Garnishee Nisi against in this suit on the 19th October 2016 asking the Garnishee (as well as another bank) to show cause why the order ought not be made absolute. In response thereto the therein named garnishee each filed affidavits to show cause and Judgement Debtor/Applicant filed a MOTION ON NOTICE on 25th November, 2016 and dated same day, supported by a 6 paragraph affidavit deposed to by Patience Agala, praying the Court for An Order setting aside the Garnishee Order Nisi made on 19/10/2016 for incompetence and for lack of jurisdiction. GROUNDS FOR THE APPLICATION 1. Sec. 83(2) of the Sheriff and Civil Process Act provides that the Garnishee and the Judgement Debtor shall be given at least 14 days before the day of the hearing of the Order Nisi. 2. In the instant case, the Garnishee Order Nisi was made on 19/10/2016, the Judgement debtor has up to this day not been served the garnishee order nisi fixed for hearing on 29/11/2016. 3. The Judgement Creditor is an agency of the CRS Government of Nigeria. 4. The Garnishee order nisi of 19/10/2016 was issued in contravention of Sec. 84(3) of the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act as the consent of the Attorney General of Cross River State was not sought and obtained before the commencement of the Garnishee process for release of funds in custody. ADDRESS IN SUPPORT OF MOTION ISSUES 1. whether the garnishee order nisi complied with Sec. 83(2) of the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act in terms of the return date for hearing of the garnishee order nisi. 2. whether this Honorable Court is seized of jurisdiction to howsoever hear and determine suit pertaining to the garnishee/applicants. 3. whether the judgement creditor/garnishor complied with the condition precedent for the settlement of judgement debt before approaching the Court for the garnishee order nisi and whether ab initio this Honorable Court is seized of jurisdiction to entertain this garnishee proceeding. 4. whether a garnishee action is a fresh suit for which Sec. 4.15 of the Garnishor Terms of Employment applies. 5. Whether Engr. Julius Ukang is the same as Engr. Julius Uguma Ukan in the Court Judgement in NICN/CA/77/2013? ON ISSUE 1 Whether teh garnishee order nisi complied with Sec. 83(2) of the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act in terms of the return date for hearing of the garnishee order nisi. Counsel relying on Sec. 122(m) of the Evidence Act, 2011 (as amended) enjoined the Court to take judicial notice of the course of proceedings, urging the Court to take judicial notice of the date of the garnishee order nisi was made and the date of filing this motion corroborates paragraph 4 of the affidavit evidence of the deponent to the affidavit in support of this motion. Counsel urged the Court to find and hold that the garnishee order nisi made by the Honorable Court is incompetent to be made absolute in view of the return date stated in the said order which violates the provisions of Sec. 83(2) of the Sheriff and Civil Process Act. he submitted that ORDER VIII(2) (3) & (4) of the JUDGEMENT ENFORCEMENT RULES , makes the issue of service according to the rules of the National Industrial Court Rules the same with that of an ordinary summons issued by the court. ON ISSUE 2 Whether this Honorable Court is seized of jurisdiction to howsoever hear and determine suit pertaining to the garnishee/applicants. Counsel submitted that this Honorable Court ab initio, lacked the jurisdiction to entertain the application of the Judgement Creditor/Respondent to make a garnishee order as there is no evidence of consent to the application to garnishee proceeding by the Judgement Creditor. SEC. 251 (1) (d) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria; CBN v. OKEB NIGERIA LTD. & ORS. (2014) LPELR - 23 162 (CA). ON ISSUE 3 Whether the judgement creditor/garnishor complied with the condition precedent for the settlement of judgement debt before approaching the Court for the garnishee order nisi and whether ab initio this Honorable Court is seized of jurisdiction to entertain this garnishee proceeding. Learned counsel to the Judgement Debtor argued that there is nothing in the garnishee order nisi to show that the Judgement Creditor / Garnishor / Respondent sought and obtained the consent of the Attorney General of Cross River State before approaching this Honorable Court for the garnishee order nisi as required by Sec. 84(1) of the Sheriff and Civil Process Act; ONJEKWU v. K.S.M.CI. (2003) 10 NWLR (PT. 827) 40 @ 79, PARAS. A-D. ON ISSUE 4 Whether Engr. Julius Ukang is the same as Engr. Julius Uguma Ukan in the Court Judgement in NICN/CA/77/2013? counsel submitted that if indeed a garnishee action is a fresh and separate cause of action which can be initiated in either the original court or a Magistrate Court pursuant to Order VIII(2) of Judgement Enforcement Rules, LFN, 2004, it follows that Sec. 4.15 of the Rules of emploment/staff handbook requiring exhaustion of internal remedy ought to apply before the order nisi is made. COUNTER AFFIDAVIT TO JUDGEMENT DEBTORS/APPLICANTS MOTION ON NOTICE DATED AND FILED ON THE 25TH NOVEMEBR, 2016 (dated and filed on 29th November, 2016). WRITTEN ADDRESS IN OPPOISTION TO JUDGEMENT DEBTOR'S MOTION DATED AND FILED ON THE 25TH OF NOVEMBER, 2016. ISSUE Whether the debtors applications is meritorious having regards to the facts deposed/contained in both the debtors affidavit in support and the judgement creditor's counter affidavit. Counsel. to the Judgement creditor Effiom Ayi Esq submitted that the National Industrial Court by Sec. 254 (c) (1) (k) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (Third Alteration Act, 2010) has jurisdiction to the exclusion of any other court in civil causes and matters relating to or connected with disputes arising from payment or non-payment of salaries, wages, pension, gratuities, allowances, benefits and any other entitlement of any employee. He further submitted that the garnishee banks are not pubic officers within the meaning and contemplation of Sec. 18 of the Interpretation Act, LFN, 2004; HANS BUCHER v. SPECIAL ADVISER DEPARTMENT OF TOURISM DEVELOPMENT, CROSS RIVER STATE & 6 ORS. (Unreported Suit No: NICN/CA/63/2014, delivered on 24th May, 2016) wherein the issue regarding obtaining the consent of the Attorney General before commencing a garnishee proceeding was laid to rest. On the 6th December 2016 the Counsel for the Judgment Creditor, Debtor and Garnishees all adopted their written addresses and the Court in a desk ruling discharged the 2nd Named Garnishee and adjourned this matter for ruling on the adopted addresses and the Garnishee’s affidavit. The Court’s Decision Having gone through this motion on Notice, Counter affidavit, and the affidavits to show cause as well as the written brief of argument of the counsel in respect thereof. Having carefully reviewed all the authorities cited, read through all the relevant processes and digested the contention of the parties, their written submission are herewith incorporated in this ruling and specific mention would be made to them where the need arises. I shall address the judgment debtors application firstly then deal with the Garnishee proper. The issue for determination with respect to the Judgment debtors application to my mind is simply whether there is any merit to the Judgment Creditors application. I am aware of the various pronouncements of the Court of Appeal that “the judgment debtor whose money is in the custody of the garnishee, even though served with an order nisi is merely a nominal party. He is a nominal party whose money in the custody of the garnishee is being recovered by the judgement creditor in satisfaction of a judgement debt he is owing to the judgment creditor. He is not the one requested to appear and show cause why the order should not be made absolute. It is the garnishee that is expected to inform the court if there is any third party interest in the said judgement debtor’s money in its custody. It is thus only the garnishee that is expected to react if the law was not properly followed or observed”. Per Orji Abadua JCA in UBA Vs. EKANEM [2010] NWLR (Pt. 1109) 207 at 222 para B-C. Also in HON. JUSTICE SOTONYE DENTON WEST Vs. CHIEF (ICHE) CHUKS MOMAH [2008] 6 NWLR (Pt. 1083) page 418 at 442/3 para H-B, Where Kekere – Ekun JCA, held that ; “A judgment debtor is neither a party to garnishee proceedings nor an aggrieved party that can appeal on an order nisi”. His lordship went on to say” … the judgment debtor is not a necessary party to the ‘garnishee’ proceedings” and Salami JCA in PIPELINES AND PRODUCTS MARKETING COMPANY LTD Vs. MESSSRS DELPHI PETROLUEM INC. [2005] 8 NWLR (Pt. 928) p. 458 at 484 para B and p. 486 para F described the fact that a Judgment debtor was allowed to take part in a garnishee proceedings as inadvertence of the court. The court is enjoined to address all application filed in a suit and it is in that context and in the interest of substantial justice that I shall proceed to address the issues raised by the Judgment debtor. With regard to issue 1, whether the garnishee order nisi complied with Sec. 83(2) of the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act in terms of the return date for hearing of the garnishee order nisi. Section 83(2) provides that; At least fourteen days before the date of hearing of a copy of the order nisi shall be served upon the garnishee and upon the judgment debtor. As was pointed out in pen court, the record of this court indicates that the claimant filed a motion exparte for an order in garnishee nisi on the 31st August 2016, the motion was heard in open court and granted in a ruling delivered by this court on the 19th October 2016 and adjourned to 29th November 2016 as the return date. The court record indicates that the enrolled order nisi was served on the garnishee on 25th October 2016 at 12 noon and on the Judgment debtors on the 7th November 2016. The matter came up for hearing on the 16th December 2016. I find that the judgment debtor and garnishee were duly served with the enrolled order 35 days and 51 days respectively before the hearing following the order nisi (hearing to show cause). This means that the provision of Section 83(2) had been adequately complied with in the hearing of this application. There is no merit to this issue formulated by the judgement debtor and I resolve it for the judgment creditor. With regard to issue 2, whether this Honorable Court is seized of jurisdiction to howsoever hear and determine suit pertaining to the garnishee/applicants. The judgment debtor has argued that the garnishee proceeding relates to banking and argues that this court, being a labour court has no jurisdiction in banking affairs. The claimant responded that this matter relates to a labour claims and relying on Section 254(1) re states the court’s jurisdiction. Garnishee proceedings are defined by the learned authors of Atkins Court Forms Volume 19, 2ndEedition paragraph 21 from page 47 thus: “garnishee proceedings or attachment of debts is a method auxiliary to that of execution for the enforcement of a judgement or order for the payment of money which is not for payment of money into court enabling the judgement creditors to attach money due to the judgement debtor from a third person called the garnishee who must be within jurisdiction.” See also AZUBUIKE v. DIAMOND BANK PLC (2014) 3 NWLR (PT. 1393) 116 @ 119 CA Where it was held that “by virtue of Sections 83 – 92 of the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act, the attachment of debts by garnishee proceedings is one of the ways a judgment creditor can execute his judgment” Now the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria has provided in Section 6 and Section 254D (1) as follows Section 6 Section 254D (1); For the purpose of exercising any jurisdiction conferred upon it by this constitution or as may be conferred by any act of the national assembly the National Industrial Court shall have the powers of a High Court. Section 10 NICA 2006 provides that this court shall have power to enforce its judgments A community reading of this provisions stated above underlines that the National Industrial Court shall have, for the purpose of exercising any jurisdiction conferred on it, the power of a High Court. Now bearing in mind that a Garnishee proceedings is a means of enforcing judgment of a court the argument of the Judgment Creditor as to this courts jurisdiction to be limited by virtue of subject matter I find is untenable in the circumstances and this issue is resolved against the Judgment debtor. As regards issue 3, whether the judgement creditor/garnishor complied with the condition precedent for the settlement of judgement debt before approaching the Court for the garnishee order nisi and whether ab initio this Honorable Court is seized of jurisdiction to entertain this garnishee proceeding. The judgment debtor in his written address made reference to the necessity of obtaining the consent of the state Attorney General. Now the Learned Jurist and authour Hon. Justice Oludotun Adefope –Okojie in her book “Civil Litigation” © 2013 at page 111 reported the case of ADEDEJI BALOGUN Vs. IJEBU ODEH LOCAL GIVERNMENT HCS/47/80 per Mabogunje J. cited in Afe Babalola “Enforcement of Judgments” 1st Edition page 120. Where the learned High Court judge held that Banks are not public officers therefore the consent of the Attorney General is not necessary before an application was made for Garnishee Order to attach funds of the Government in its custody. See also REGAL CONSTRUCTION NIG. LTD. Vs. COMMISSIONER FOR JUSTICE LAGOS STATE Suit No. LD/2953/1998 delivered on 27th October 2011. See also HANS BUCHER v. SPECIAL ADVISER DEPARTMENT OF TOURISM DEVELOPMENT, CROSS RIVER STATE & 6 ORS. (Unreported Suit No: NICN/CA/63/2014, delivered on 24th May, 2016). I find no merit in this issue and resolve it against the judgment debtor. With regard to issue 4, whether a garnishee action is a fresh suit for which Sec. 4.15 of the Garnishor Terms of Employment applies. Have noted that the garnishee is an means of enforcing judgment above, see Atkins Court Forms Volume 19, 2nd edition paragraph 21 from page 47 and relying on the case of AZUBUIKE v. DIAMOND BANK PLC (Supra). I find that this argument had been dealt with and this issue had been resolved alongside the one above and that Garnishee is not a fresh action. The judgment debtor raised in issue 5, whether Engr. Julius Ukang is the same as Engr. Julius Uguma Ukan in the Court Judgement in NICN/CA/77/2013. The judgment creditor in filing the motion for an order nisi had stare his name as the judgment creditor, on of the face of the application as Engr. Julius Uguma Ukang and that name was used throughout his proceedings in the application for Garnishee. This court in enrolling the order nisi stated on the Enrolment Order the name of the Judgement Creditor to be Engr. Julius Ukang , omitting the middle name. the garnishees in responding also adopted the names of the judgment creditor a Engr, Juluis Ukang as did the judgment debtor. In law it is only when the name of the party is unclear and the parties are unsure of who the name refers that issues can be raised. In this instant case there is no confusion as to whom the name Engr. Julius Ukang and/ or Engr Julius Uguma Ukang refer. The judgment creditor had deposed to that fact in their affidavit. I agree with the Judgment creditors the Judgment debtor have not shown to the court how they were made to suffer or were confounded by the omission of the Judgment creditor’s middle name by the Court. This issue is of no merit I resolve it against the judgment debtor. In short all 5 of the judgment debtor’s issues are hereby resolved against the judgment debtor and dismissed for lack of merit. The 2nd Garnishee had duly filed their affidavit to show cause on the 10th November 2016. I am satisfied with the processes before me and having listened to learned counsel and in the circumstance, I hereby order that a Garnishee order absolute be made and the said order is hereby made against the Garnishee herein; the sum in the possession of the Garnishee, Zenith Bank Plc. is hereby attached for the satisfaction of the Judgment debt, the sum of Four Million Four Hundred and Sixty-two Thousand, Seven Hundred and Ninety–Four Naira and Sixty-Four Kobo which is in possession of the Garnishee for the satisfaction of the Judgment debt. The Garnishees is by this order directed to release the said sum in their possession standing in the credit of the Judgment Debtor to the Judgment Creditor as follows the sum of Four Million, Four Hundred and Sixty-two Thousand, Seven Hundred and Ninety–Four Naira and Sixty-Four Kobo to be released immediately and upon compliance herewith the Garnishee named above shall stand discharged. This order is given under my hand this day of, 2017. …………………………………… Hon. Justice E. N. Agbakoba Judge