Legalpedia Citation: (2025-01) Legalpedia 90344 (SC)

In the Supreme Court of Nigeria

Fri Jan 24, 2025

Suit Number: SC.CV/268/2021

CORAM

John Inyang Okoro Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria

Helen Moronkeji Ogunwumi juJustice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria

Adamu Jauro Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria

Moore Aseimo Abraham Adumein Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria

Habeeb Adewale Olumuyiwa Abiru Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria

PARTIES

CENTRAL BANK OF NIGERIA

APPELLANTS

1. INALEGWU FRANKLINE OCHIFE
2. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE
3. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, FCT
4. O/C INTELLIGENCE RESPONSE TEAM, SPECIAL ANTI ROBBERY SQUAD (SARS) NIGERIAN POLICE FORCE

RESPONDENTS

AREA(S) OF LAW

APPEAL, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, GARNISHEE PROCEEDINGS, CIVIL PROCEDURE, JURISDICTION, BANKING LAW, SHERIFFS AND CIVIL PROCESS LAW, EVIDENCE, JUDICIAL POWERS, ENFORCEMENT OF JUDGMENTS

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The case originated from a garnishee proceeding initiated by the first Respondent against the Appellant (the Central Bank of Nigeria) in an attempt to enforce payment of a judgment sum awarded to him against the second to fourth Respondents (the Inspector General of Police, the Commissioner of Police FCT, and the O/C Intelligence Response Team, Special Anti Robbery Squad of the Nigerian Police Force) in a judgment delivered by the Federal High Court on October 10, 2018.

The first Respondent obtained a judgment of N50 Million against the second to fourth Respondents and later applied for a garnishee order to attach the funds in the accounts of the judgment debtors allegedly held by the Appellant under the Treasury Single Accounts (TSA) policy of the Federal Government of Nigeria. The first Respondent claimed that the judgment debtors maintained accounts with the Appellant under the TSA policy with funds sufficient to satisfy the judgment sum.

On December 10, 2018, the Federal High Court granted a Garnishee Order Nisi directing the Appellant to show cause why it should not pay the judgment sum to the first Respondent. The Appellant filed an affidavit to show cause on January 7, 2019, denying that it maintained any account in the names of the judgment debtors. When the matter came up for hearing on January 11, 2019, the Appellant was absent, and the trial Court ruled on January 21, 2019, that the Appellant’s affidavit to show cause was filed out of time and consequently made the Garnishee Order Absolute.

The Appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal, which agreed that the Appellant’s affidavit to show cause was not filed out of time but proceeded to exercise its powers under Section 15 of the Court of Appeal Act to rehear the garnishee proceedings. The Court of Appeal examined the Appellant’s affidavit to show cause but rejected the Appellant’s denial of maintaining accounts for the judgment debtors. The Court took judicial notice, under Section 124 of the Evidence Act, that under the Federal Government Treasury Single Account policy, all government Ministries, Departments and Agencies (MDAs) accounts are maintained with the Appellant. The Court of Appeal dismissed the Appellant’s appeal, leading to this further appeal to the Supreme Court.

HELD

1. The appeal was allowed.
2. The judgment of the Court of Appeal delivered on December 4, 2020, in Appeal No. CA/A/111/2019 was set aside.
3. The garnishee proceedings commenced by the first Respondent were dismissed and the Appellant was discharged.
4. The parties were to bear their respective costs of the appeal.

ISSUES

1. Whether the lower Court was right to hold that a garnishee cannot raise absence of jurisdiction where the judgment debtor is not contesting the judgment sought to be enforced.
2. Whether the lower Court ought to have invalidated the garnishee order absolute pronounced by the trial Court without the consent of the Attorney General of the Federation which is a condition precedent for exercising jurisdiction over the garnishee proceedings.
3. Whether the lower Court was right in invoking its powers under Section 15 of the Court of Appeal Act and Order 20 Rule 11 of the Court of Appeal Rules to determine the garnishee matter.
4. Whether the lower Court was right or justified in relying on Section 124 of the Evidence Act, 2011 to reject the Appellant’s denial of having accounts in the judgment debtors’ names and to hold that the Judgment Debtors are MDAs (Ministries, Department and Agencies) whose accounts are with the Appellant under the Federal Government Treasury Single Account Policy.

RATIONES DECIDENDI

JURISDICTION — DIFFERENCE BETWEEN PROCEDURAL JURISDICTION AND SUBSTANTIVE JURISDICTION

“It is without doubt that the word “jurisdiction” is an
overarching generic word with many subsets, but perhaps the two major subsets
are “procedural jurisdiction” and “substantive jurisdiction”.
It is essential to understand that there is a whole world of difference between
procedural jurisdiction and the substantive jurisdiction of a Court to hear a
matter.” – Per HABEEB ADEWALE OLUMUYIWA ABIRU, J.S.C.

ISSUE OF JURISDICTION — WHEN ISSUE OF LACK OF JURISDICTION CAN BE RAISED:

“It is
matters of substantive jurisdiction, and which if resolved against a party
renders the entire proceedings a nullity, that can be raised at any time, not
matters of procedural jurisdiction – Odu’a Investment Co. Ltd Vs Talabi (1997)
10 NWLR (Pt 523 1, Ndayako Vs Dantoro (2004) 13 NWLR (Pt 889) 187, Nagogo Vs
Congress for Progressive Change (2013) 2 NWLR (Pt 1339) 448, Udo Vs The
Registered Trustees of the Brotherhood of the Cross & Star (2013) 14 NWLR
(Pt 1375) 488, Julius Berger Nigeria Plc Vs Almighty Projects Innovative Ltd
supra, Odu’a Investment Co Ltd Vs Michael supra.” – Per HABEEB ADEWALE
OLUMUYIWA ABIRU, J.S.C.

CONDITION PRECEDENT IN INVOKING JURISDICTION — NATURE OF FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH A CONDITION PRECEDENT

“Following
this classification, this Court has held that failure of a party to comply with
a condition precedent before embarking on a Court action is a matter of
procedural jurisdiction, and not one of substantive jurisdiction – Atolagbe Vs
Awuni (1997) 9 NWLR (Pt 522) 536, Mobil Producing Nigeria Unlimited Vs Lagos
State Environment Protection Agency supra, Owoseni Vs Faloye (2005) 14 NWLR (Pt
946) 719, Kayili Vs Yilbuk (2015) 7 NWLR (Pt 1457) 26, Attorney General of
Kwara State Vs Adeyemo (2016) LPELR 41147(SC), Akahall & Sons Ltd Vs
Nigeria Deposit Insurance Corporation (2017) 7 NWLR (Pt 1564) 194.” – Per
HABEEB ADEWALE OLUMUYIWA ABIRU, J.S.C.

WAIVER OF IRREGULARITY IN PROCEEDINGS — EFFECT OF CONTESTING A MATTER ON THE MERITS WITHOUT RAISING PROCEDURAL OBJECTION

“Where
the matter of procedural jurisdiction is not so raised by the opponent and he
proceeds to contest the matter on the merits, he will be deemed to have waived
the irregularity and be foreclosed from raising it again – Katsina Local
Government Authority Vs Makudawa (1971) 7 NSCC 119, Attorney General, Bendel
State Vs Attorney General of the Federation & Ors (1981) LPELR 605(SC) at
204-205, Ostankino Shipping Co. Ltd Vs The Owners, The MT Bata (2022) 3 NWLR
9Pt 1817) 367, Peoples Democratic Party Vs Muhammad (2023) LPELR 60157(SC),
Habibu Vs State (2023) LPELR 60351 (SC), Total Exploration & Production
Nigeria Ltd Vs Okwu supra.” – Per HABEEB ADEWALE OLUMUYIWA ABIRU, J.S.C.

JURISDICTION OF COURT OF APPEAL — LIMITATION ON APPELLATE JURISDICTION:

“The
appellate jurisdiction of the lower Court under Sections 240, 241 and 242 of
the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 in respect of appeals
against the decisions of the High Court is limited to matters that were raised,
canvassed and/or ruled upon by the High Court and also to matters that were
properly raised before it. The lower Court has no jurisdiction to entertain and
rule upon matters that were not raised, canvassed and/or decided by the High
Court and/or matters that were not properly raised before it – Anla v.
Anyanbola & Ors (1977) NSCC (Vol 11) 162, Sanusi Vs Ayoola (1992) 9 NWLR
(Pt. 265) 275, Akpan Vs Bob (2010) 17 NWLR (Pt 1223)421, Lababedi Vs
Majekodunmi (2018) 5 NWLR (Pt 1612) 369, PML (Nig) Ltd Vs Federal Republic of
Nigeria (2018) 7 NWLR (Pt 1619) 448.” – Per HABEEB ADEWALE OLUMUYIWA
ABIRU, J.S.C.

SUA SPONTE RAISING OF JURISDICTIONAL ISSUES BY SUPREME COURT — WHEN SUPREME COURT CAN RAISE JURISDICTION SUA SPONTE

“It
is correct that this question of the jurisdiction of the lower Court to
adjudicate on the issue of failure to obtain fiat is being raised and
determined by this Court suo motu. The law is that, being an issue touching on
the substantive jurisdiction of the lower Court, it is one that this Court can
so raise and so determine – Akingbulugbe Vs Nigerian Romanian Wood Industries
Ltd (2023) 11 NWLR (Pt 1895) 339, Ashaka Vs Nwachukwu (2024) 8 NWLR (Pt 1942)
149, Ughanwa Vs Inspector Genera! of Police (2024) 16 NWLR (Pt 1963) 91.”
– Per HABEEB ADEWALE OLUMUYIWA ABIRU, J.S.C.

JURISDICTION TO ENTERTAIN APPEAL — LACK OF JURISDICTION IN THE LOWER COURT AFFECTS SUPREME COURT’S JURISDICTION:

“It
is trite law that this Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate
over an appeal against a decision given by the lower Court without jurisdiction
– Nwoko Vs Waoboshi (2020) 13 NWLR (Pt 1742) 395, Oni Vs Fayemi (2020) 15 NWLR
(Pt 1746) 59, Ebebi Vs Ozobo (2022) 1 NWLR (Pt 1808) 165, Ebebi Vs Esemokumor
(2022)1 NWLR (Pt 1812) 463, NNPC Vs Fung Tai Engineering Co Ltd (2023) 15 NWLR
(Pt 1906) 117.” – Per HABEEB ADEWALE OLUMUYIWA ABIRU, J.S.C.

NATURE OF GARNISHEE PROCEEDINGS — DEFINITION AND PROCEDURE:

“Garnishee
Proceeding is one of the ways of executing a judgment. It is the procedure
whereby the judgment creditor obtains the order of Court to attach any debt
owing to the judgment debtor from any person or body within the jurisdiction of
the Court to satisfy the judgment debt. That process is known as
“attachment of debt.” It is a separate and distinct action between
the judgment creditor and the person or body holding custody of the assets of
the judgment debtor, although it flows from the judgment that pronounced the
debt owing.” – Per HABEEB ADEWALE OLUMUYIWA ABIRU, J.S.C.

GARNISHEE ORDER NISI AND ABSOLUTE — PROCEDURE FOR MAKING GARNISHEE ORDER ABSOLUTE

A
successful party, in his quest to move fast against the assets of the judgment
debtor, usually makes an application ex parte for an order in that direction.
If the application ex parte is adjudged to be meritorious, the Judge will make
an order which is technically known as a “garnishee order nisi” attaching
the debt due or accruing to the judgment debtor from such person or body who
from the moment of making the order is called the garnishee. The order also
carries a directive on the garnishee to appear and show cause why he should not
pay to the judgment creditor the debt owed by it to the judgment debtor. The
garnishee must appear before the Court. If he does not appear in obedience to
the order nisi or does not dispute liability, the Court may then make the order
nisi absolute pursuant to the provisions of Section 86 of the Sheriffs and
Civil Process Act.” – Per HABEEB ADEWALE OLUMUYIWA ABIRU, J.S.C.

DISPUTED LIABILITY IN GARNISHEE PROCEEDINGS — ONUS OF PROOF AND EVALUATION OF EVIDENCE

:
“What the Courts did in the above cases cited on the four scenarios, and
indeed, what a Court hearing a garnishee proceeding should do when a garnishee
files an affidavit to show cause, is to evaluate the depositions in the
affidavit upon which the Garnishee Order Nisi was granted vis-a-vis the
depositions in the affidavit to show cause and determine on a preponderance of
evidence if there is a real dispute of liability… And the evaluation of the
evidence must be done with the understanding that the primary onus of proof in
the garnishee proceedings is on the judgment creditor, and not on the
garnishee.” – Per HABEEB ADEWALE OLUMUYIWA ABIRU, J.S.C.

ONUS OF PROOF IN GARNISHEE PROCEEDINGS — JUDGMENT CREDITOR MUST ESTABLISH THAT JUDGMENT DEBTOR’S MONEY IS WITH GARNISHEE

:
“Since the essence of a garnishee order is to attach any debt owing to the
judgment debtor from any person or body within the jurisdiction of the Court to
satisfy the judgment debt, a judgment creditor cannot by means of attachment,
stand in a better position as regards the garnishee than the judgment debtor
did; “he can only obtain what the judgment debtor could honestly give
him” – Re: General Horticultural Co, ex parte Whitehouse (1886) 32 Ch. D
512, United Bank for Africa Vs France Appro SAS (2015) LPELR 40394(CA). The
judgment creditor must thus show by credible evidence that monies belonging to
the judgment debtor are indeed in the hands of the garnishee.” – Per
HABEEB ADEWALE OLUMUYIWA ABIRU, J.S.C.

EVALUATION OF EVIDENCE BY THE COURT — PROCEDURE AND CONSEQUENCES OF IMPROPER EVALUATION

“Evaluation
of evidence entails a trial Court placing the totality of the testimonies of
both parties on an imaginary scale. One side of the scale will contain the
evidence of the plaintiff while the other side will harbor the evidence of the
defendant. The Court must then weigh them together to see which side is heavier
than the other. This is in terms of quality, not quantity… The trial Court
must not impair the evidence either with its personal knowledge of matters not
placed and canvassed before it or by inadequate evaluation, and its duty is to
reach a decision only on the basis of what is in issue and what has been
demonstrated upon the evidence by the parties and supported by law. The
observance of the procedure for evaluation of evidence is crucial to arriving
at a just decision. Its breach will most likely lead to a perverse
decision.” – Per HABEEB ADEWALE OLUMUYIWA ABIRU, J.S.C.

PERVERSE DECISION — WHAT CONSTITUTES A PERVERSE DECISION

“It is without doubt that the findings and conclusion of the lower Court
that the judgments debtors, the second to the fourth Respondents, are MDAs and
that as such the Appellant maintained accounts in their names under Treasury
Single Accounts Policy of the Federal Government of Nigeria run counter to the
evidence placed before it and they were arrived at because the lower Court took
account of matters which it ought not to have taken into account and shut its
eyes to the obvious. The decision of the lower Court is a classic example of a
perverse decision – Ifenne Vs Ahmadu Bello University (2023) 7 (Pt 1883) 327,
Oladipo Vs Kalejaiye (2023) 14 NWLR (Pt 1903) 153, Ani Vs State (2024) LPELR
62746(SC), Aghwarianovwe Vs Peoples Democratic Party (2024) 1 NWLR (Pt 1918)
45.” – Per HABEEB ADEWALE OLUMUYIWA ABIRU, J.S.C.

CASES CITED

STATUTES REFERRED TO

Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended)

Sheriffs and Civil Process Act

Court of Appeal Act

Evidence Act, 2011

Federal High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 2019

Court of Appeal Rules 2016

Central Bank of Nigeria Act

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT