Download PDF
RULING Introduction This is a Notice of a Preliminary Objection dated 22nd January, 2019 filed by the Garnishee/Applicant praying for an order striking out the garnishee proceedings for want of jurisdiction. The grounds upon which the objection is made are as follows: 1. The condition precedent to the commencement of the garnishee proceeding in respect of funds in the custody and control of a public officer was not complied with i.e. the consent or fiat of the Attorney General of the Federation was not sought or obtained before the garnishee order nisi was granted. 2. The provisions of Section 84(1) and (2) of the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act Cap 56 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004 was not complied with by the claimant/judgment creditor. 3. Jurisdiction over the garnishee being a Federal Government agency falls exclusively under the Federal High Court on the strength of Section 251(1) (d) of the 1999 Constitution as amended. 4. By reason of grounds 1, 2, and 3 above this Honourable Court lacks the requisite jurisdiction over the garnishee proceedings. The objection is supported by an affidavit sworn to by Kikelomo Isiolaotan Legal Practitioner and a written address. In opposition, the Judgment Creditor filed a counter affidavit sworn to by Justus Onyemachi, Litigation Officer on 25th January, 2019 and a written address. Counsel adopted their respective written addresses. Addresses Learned counsel to the Garnishee submitted two issues for determination as follows: 1. Whether the claimant/judgment creditor herein duly complied with the condition precedent to the initiation of the Garnishee proceeding in this suit? 2. Whether this Honourable Court has the jurisdiction to entertain this suit against the Garnishee being a Federal Government agency? In arguing the application, he referred to Section 84(1), (2) and (3) of the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act Cap 56 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004. He submitted that the applicant requires the consent of the Attorney General of the Federation before commencement of garnishee proceedings citing Onjewu v Kogi State Ministry of Commerce and Industry & 2 Ors [2003] 10 NWLR (Pt.827) 40 @ 52 ratio 9, CBN v Kakuri [2016] LPELR-41468, Sule v Kabir [2011] 2 NWLR (Pt.1232) 515 @ 524 Paras C-F. It was learned counsel’s submission that the requirement of the Attorney-General’s consent for garnishee order nisi is not inconsistent with the provisions of Section 36(1) and Section 287(3) of the 1999 Constitution. Learned counsel further submitted that by virtue of Section 251 (1) (d) of the 1999 Constitution as amended, Section 2 of the Central Bank Act, 2007 and Sections 1, 2, 3, 5 and 12 of the Banks and Other Financial Institutions Act, 2004 the National Industrial Court does not have jurisdiction to entertain garnishee proceedings against the CBN as garnishee. Learned counsel to the Judgment Creditor in response submitted the following issue for determination: 1. Whether this Honourable Court lacks the requisite jurisdiction to entertain the Judgment Creditor’s Garnishee proceedings? He submitted that the duty of a Garnishee is to show cause, pay the judgment debt and nothing more, referring to UBA Plc v Ekanem [2010] 2 NWLR (Pt. 1177) @ 181, PDP v Okorocha [2012] 15 NWLR (Pt.1323) P. 205, CBN v Interstella Comm. Ltd [2018] 7 NWLR (Pt.1618) P. 350 Paras C-D. He further submitted that the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) is the Banker to Banks referring to Section 41 of the CBN Act; and that the relationship that exists between the CBN and the 1st judgment Debtor is that the CBN is the banker to the 1st Judgement debtor United Bank for Africa. He submitted that on the strength of the authority in CBN v Interstella Comm Ltd supra, there is no need to seek consent of the Attorney General of the Federation before the CBN as Garnishee can be sued in the proceedings. It was learned counsel’s submission that this Court has the requisite jurisdiction to entertain the Garnishee proceedings. He then urged the Court to dismiss the Garnishee Objection with substantial costs. Decision I have carefully considered the arguments by counsel. I will begin with the submission of learned counsel to the Garnishee that by virtue of Section 251(1)(d) of the 1999 Constitution, Section 2 of the Central Bank Act and Section 1, 2, 3, 5 and 12 of Banks and Other Financial Institutions Act (BOFIA) this court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the proceedings. This garnishee proceedings is for the enforcement of a monetary judgment being the salaries and allowances of the claimant/judgment creditor after the Court of Appeal, which is the final Court in respect of appeals emanating from judgments of this Court dismissed the judgment debtors’ appeal. See Section 243 (4) of the 1999 Constitution Third Alteration Act 2010. The provisions of Section 2 of the Central Bank Act, Section 251(1)(d) of the 1999 Constitution and Sections 1, 2, 3, 5 and 12 of BOFIA are not applicable and have no bearing on this Garnishee Proceedings that has arisen from an employment matter. By virtue of the provisions of Section 254C (1) of the 1999 Constitution Third Alteration Act 2010, this Court has exclusive jurisdiction in matters relating to or connected with any labour, employment, trade union and industrial relations matters arising or emanating from the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) as a workplace, and in its capacity as an employer; and I so hold. Applying the recent decision of the Supreme Court in the case of CBN v Interstella Comm. Ltd. [2018] 7 NWLR (Pt.1618) 294 at 346 Para D, E, F-G, the CBN is not a public officer in this instance and in the context of Section 84 of the Sheriff &Civil Process Act; as the relationship between the CBN and the 1st Judgment Debtor is that of Banker to the 1st Judgment Debtor, section 41 of the CBN Act CAP C4 LFN 2010. There is therefore no need or requirement for the judgment creditor to seek the consent of the Attorney-General as submitted by the objector/garnishee because the funds of the 1st judgment debtor already attached by the Order Nisi do not fall under the category of funds that can be earmarked for public spending. The duty of the Garnishee is to pay the judgment debt from funds it holds for the judgment debtor. The Garnishee has in its affidavit to show cause sworn to on the 22nd January 2019 by Kikelomo Isiolaotan deposed to the fact that the 1st judgment debtor maintains a sufficiently funded account with it. The Supreme Court has stated unequivocally in CBN v Interstella Comm. Ltd supra at page 350 para E & F, per Ogunbiyi JSC as follows: The role of a garnishee in any garnishee proceeding is delimited. As rightly argued by the counsel for the 1st and 2nd respondents, it is not envisaged that after a judgment creditor has gone through the rigours to establish his rights through the legal system, that the garnishee, who is asked to surrender the judgment debtor’s money in its possession should engage the judgment creditor in another bout of legal battle. See Order V111 Part 11 of the Judgement (Enforcement ) Rules. Basically, the restrictive role and legal duty of a garnishee in a judgement enforcement proceeding is to conscientiously and truthfully appear before the court in order to disclose the judgement debtor’s state of account in its custody. As the records of the court will show, the CBN engaged the judgement creditor in a bout of legal battle, and initially disobeyed the order of court to file an affidavit to show cause until its officer who deposed to the initial contemptuous affidavit was ordered to appear in court. The CBN should be guided by the Supreme Court decision. Consequently, the Notice of Preliminary Objection is hereby dismissed with costs of N50,000.00 awarded the judgment creditor. The 1st judgment debtor UBA Plc has also filed a similar application on the 14th January 2019 praying for an order setting aside the Garnishee Order Nisi for lack of jurisdiction in the grounds that the funds attached are statutory funds, and that the judgment creditor failed to seek the consent of the Attorney-General of the Federation pursuant to Section 84 of the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act. I have considered the application and the processes filed in opposition. This ruling against the CBN as Garnishee has already and effectively determined this application in its entirety. It is also dismissed. I must at this juncture reiterate that the decision of the Court of Appeal dismissing the appeal of the judgement debtors is final. In view of the Garnishees affidavit deposing to the fact that the 1st judgement debtor has sufficient funds in its account, the Garnishee Order Nisi is hereby made Absolute. The Garnishee is ordered to immediately pay the sum of N113,187,123.00 (One Hundred and Thirteen Million, One Hundred and Eighty Seven Thousand, One Hundred and Twenty Three Naira) to the judgment creditor through her counsel together with the N50,000.00 costs. Ruling is entered accordingly. ____________________________ Hon. Justice O.A. Obaseki-Osaghae