GUARANTY TRUST BANK PLC V. INNOSON NIGERIA LIMITED

Legalpedia Citation: (2025-06) Legalpedia 42080 (SC)

In the Supreme Court of Nigeria

Fri Jun 20, 2025

Suit Number: SC.694/2014(R2)

CORAM

Ibrahim Mohammed Musa Saulawa Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria

Emmanuel Akomaye Agim Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria

Obande Festus Ogbuinya Justice of the Court of Appeal

Abubakar Sadiq Umar Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria

Mohammed Baba Idris Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria

PARTIES

GUARANTY TRUST BANK PLC

APPELLANTS

INNOSON NIGERIA LIMITED

PARTIES SOUGHT TO BE JOINED AS RESPONDENTS

1. NIGERIA CUSTOMS SERVICE BOARD
2. ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF THE FEDERATION
3. HONOURABLE MINISTER FOR FINANCE, BUDGET AND NATIONAL PLANNING

RESPONDENTS

AREA(S) OF LAW

CIVIL PROCEDURE, JOINDER OF PARTIES, GARNISHEE PROCEEDINGS, ABUSE OF COURT PROCESS, PRELIMINARY OBJECTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, EVIDENCE, AFFIDAVIT EVIDENCE, APPROBATION AND REPROBATION

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The case originated from a judgment debt in Suit No. FHC/L/CS/603/2006 where Innoson Nigeria Limited obtained judgment against Nigerian Customs Service Board and Attorney General of the Federation for N700,220,000 with 22% interest per annum. Innoson subsequently initiated garnishee proceedings against several banks including Guaranty Trust Bank (GTB). The Federal High Court made a garnishee order absolute against GTB for N2,048,737,443.67. GTB appealed this decision to the Court of Appeal. During the appeal proceedings on February 26, 2013, counsel from the Attorney General’s office informed the court that the Nigerian Customs Service Board had paid the judgment sum to Innoson. Based on this information, GTB’s counsel withdrew the appeal against the Nigerian Customs Service Board and Attorney General of the Federation on February 26, 2013, which was formalized and granted on October 28, 2013. Despite this withdrawal, the Court of Appeal affirmed the garnishee order against GTB on February 6, 2014. GTB then filed the present application on March 1, 2022, seeking to join the Nigerian Customs Service Board, Attorney General of the Federation, and Minister of Finance as parties to the Supreme Court appeal, claiming these parties had paid N700,220,000 as full and final settlement of the entire judgment debt.

HELD

1. The preliminary objection filed by the Respondent was dismissed as procedurally incompetent since preliminary objections are designed to challenge the competence of appeals, not to defeat interlocutory applications like motions for joinder.
2. The application for joinder was dismissed as constituting a gross abuse of judicial process.
3. The Court held that GTB could not approbate and reprobate by first voluntarily withdrawing the appeal against the parties and then seeking to re-join them.
4. The Court found that the parties sought to be joined were not necessary parties for the effective determination of the appeal.
5. The Court awarded costs of N5,000,000 against GTB in favor of Innoson.
6. The Court severely criticized the quality of affidavit evidence filed by both parties for containing legal arguments and conclusions rather than facts.

ISSUES

1. Whether the application for joinder filed on the 1st of March, 2022, should be dismissed for being an abuse of judicial process?
2. Whether, based on the facts elicited in the affidavit in support of the Appellant/Applicant’s Motion on Notice, the instant application is meritorious and this Honourable Court ought to grant same?
3. Whether in the circumstances of the case made out – the evidence, facts materials placed before this Honourable Court and the state of the law – the Applicant is entitled to be granted an order joining the parties sought to be joined as Respondents in the instant appeal?

RATIONES DECIDENDI

PROPER USE OF PRELIMINARY OBJECTION – LIMITATION TO CHALLENGING APPEAL COMPETENCE

A preliminary objection is a procedural tool employed to challenge the competence of an appeal, particularly on grounds that affects the jurisdiction of the Court. Its primary objective is to prevent the continuation of proceedings where it is alleged that the Court lacks the legal capacity to adjudicate over the matter… It is not a mechanism by which the Court may summarily dismiss an interlocutory application such as a Motion on Notice for Joinder.– Per MOHAMMED BABA IDRIS, J.S.C.

PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS FOR PRELIMINARY OBJECTION – RESTRICTION TO PURE POINTS OF LAW

It is trite that a preliminary objection is intended to raise pure points of law, which if successful, would dispose of the entire suit or substantially affect the competence of the action ab initio… The Rules of this Court do not contemplate the use of a preliminary objection to truncate or pre-empt the hearing of a Motion on Notice. – Per MOHAMMED BABA IDRIS, J.S.C.

DEFINITION AND SCOPE OF ABUSE OF JUDICIAL PROCESS – IMPROPER USE OF COURT PROCEDURES

The concept of abuse of judicial process is inherently broad and imprecise, encompassing a wide range of circumstances and situations. The Court emphasized that a common thread running through all instances of abuse is the improper or unreasonable use of judicial procedures by a party, in a manner that is designed to harass, delay, or otherwise obstruct the fair administration of justice.– Per MOHAMMED BABA IDRIS, J.S.C.

PROHIBITION AGAINST APPROBATING AND REPROBATING – CONSISTENCY IN LITIGATION POSITIONS

It is therefore rather startling and legally untenable that the same Appellant/Applicant who, through a formal application, procured the dismissal of the appeal against the aforementioned parties, would now turn around and seek to reintroduce them as parties to this appeal. This conduct amounts to a clear case of approbating and reprobating – an impermissible practice in our legal system. – Per MOHAMMED BABA IDRIS, J.S.C.

PRINCIPLE AGAINST INCONSISTENT POSITIONS – PROHIBITION OF BLOWING HOT AND COLD

A litigant is not permitted to blow hot and cold, or to adopt inconsistent positions in the course of the same litigation. The law is well settled that a party must be consistent in the pursuit of their case and cannot be allowed to approbate and reprobate at will.– Per MOHAMMED BABA IDRIS, J.S.C.

SCOPE AND LIMITATION OF GARNISHEE PROCEEDINGS – RESTRICTED ROLE OF GARNISHEE

It is pertinent to state at this juncture that garnishee proceedings are not to be misconstrued as avenues for reopening issues relating to liability, proof of debt, or jurisdiction over subject matter. In law, the garnishee is not a party to the substantive proceedings that culminated in the judgment debt. The garnishee’s role is clearly defined and limited to confirming whether it holds funds belonging to the judgment debtor and, if so, whether there is any lawful impediment to the garnishment of such funds.– Per MOHAMMED BABA IDRIS, J.S.C.

PROHIBITION AGAINST GARNISHEE ACTING AS JUDGMENT DEBTOR’S COUNSEL – LIMITED FUNCTION

A garnishee is not permitted to transform the garnishee process into a forum for substantive litigation, nor is it permitted to act as counsel for the judgment debtor by seeking to shield the debtor’s assets. – Per MOHAMMED BABA IDRIS, J.S.C.

FUNDAMENTAL NATURE OF ABUSE OF PROCESS – NULLIFYING EFFECT ON PROCEEDINGS

It is well settled that where there is an abuse of Court process, such abuse is not a mere irregularity capable of being waived or condoned, rather, it is a fundamental vice which nullifies the offending process. An abuse of Court’s process strikes at the very foundation of the judicial system, warranting the summary dismissal of the process that is found to be abusive.– Per MOHAMMED BABA IDRIS, J.S.C.

PROPER CONTENT OF AFFIDAVITS – RESTRICTION TO FACTS WITHIN PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE

It is trite law that an affidavit is a means of placing facts, not law, before the Court. It is intended to contain statements of fact within the personal knowledge of the deponent, and not legal submissions, arguments or the reproduction of authorities. – Per MOHAMMED BABA IDRIS, J.S.C.

STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS FOR AFFIDAVIT EVIDENCE – COMPLIANCE WITH EVIDENCE ACT

Every affidavit used in the Court shall contain only a statement of facts and circumstances to which the witness deposes either of his own personal knowledge or from information which he believes to be true… An affidavit shall not contain extraneous matter by way of objection, prayer or legal argument or conclusion.– Per MOHAMMED BABA IDRIS, J.S.C.

FUNDAMENTAL CONDITIONS FOR JOINDER OF PARTIES – COMMON TRANSACTION AND QUESTIONS

It’s a well settled doctrine, that the joinder of parties, whether as plaintiffs or defendants, is subject to two fundamental conditions: (i) The right to relief must in each case be in regard to, or arise out of, the same transaction or series of transactions; (ii) That there must be some common question of law or fact.– Per IBRAHIM MOHAMMED MUSA SAULAWA, J.S.C.

DEFINITION OF NECESSARY PARTIES – INTEREST IN SUBJECT MATTER

Instructively, parties interested denote all those who claim some share or interest in the subject matter of the suit, or who may be (adversely) affected by the result, as well as those who the Court may join even suo motu such interested parties are deemed necessary parties, for their presence before the Court may be necessary in order to enable the Court to effectively and conclusively adjudicate upon and settle all the questions in controversy. – Per IBRAHIM MOHAMMED MUSA SAULAWA, J.S.C.

COMPREHENSIVE DEFINITION OF ABUSE OF PROCESS – IMPROPER USE FOR HARASSMENT

An abuse of Court’s process postulates a situation where the process of the Court has not been used bona fide, or where the new action is grossly mala fide. It equally denotes an improper use of legal process and abuse of legal procedure. Thus, where the Court’s process is used as a means of vexation or oppression or for ulterior purposes, or where the process is utterly misused (as in the instant case), this amounts to a sheer abuse of Court’s process. – Per IBRAHIM MOHAMMED MUSA SAULAWA, J.S.C.

CASES CITED

STATUTES REFERRED TO

1. Supreme Court Act, 1960
2. Supreme Court Rules, 1985 (as amended)
3. Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended)
4. Evidence Act, 2011

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT