CORAM

MUSA DATTHO MUHAMMAD

KUDIRAT MOTONMORI OI.ATOKIJNBO KEKERE-EKUN

PARTIES

GUARANTY TRUST BANK PLC      APPELLANTS

RESPONDENTS

AREA(S) OF LAW

Not Available

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The Respondent as Plaintiff, at the Federal High Court, Ibadan, obtained judgement in its favour against the Defendants/Judgement debtors, Nigeria Customs Service and the Attorney-General of the Federation. The Order Nisi issued by the Federal High Court was served on the Appellant (as the 5th Garnishee) being amongst the listed bankers of the 1st Judgment Debtor. The 5th Garnishee/Appellant in his further affidavit to show cause, averred, that the said funds are remitted daily to the Federation Account with the Central Bank of Nigeria because the funds in the accounts belonged to the Federal Government of Nigeria; and that the 2nd Judgment Debtor does not maintain any account with the 5th Garnishee. The 5th Garnishee/Appellant attached the statement of Account for the period of 5 months stating that the Judgement Debtor had a credit balance of N468.50 same was debunked by the Judgement Creditor. The 5th Garnishee/Appellant subsequently admitted that the 1st Judgement Debtor had a further sum of N4, 238,514.00 which it explained as revenue item. The trial court formed a view that the 5th Garnishee has not displayed utmost good faith and hence disregarded the initial statement of Account.  The Court of Appeal in dismissing the appeal against the garnishee order absolute dismissed the Appellant’s contention that other monies standing to the credit of the 1st Judgement Debtor were held in the revenue account payable to the Federation Account of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, that the fact that it was for a particular purpose does not mean that it did not belong to the 1st Judgement Debtor. Dissatisfied by the lower court’s judgement, the Appellant has further lodge an appeal before this court and filed an application seeking an order granting leave to the Applicant to amend its Notice of Appeal, an order to raise fresh issues on appeal amongst others.  The application was opposed by the Respondent who contended that the Appellant had waived their right to adduce additional evidence and are estopped from adducing additional evidence.

HELD

Application Dismissed

ISSUES

None

RATIONES DECIDENDI

CASES CITED

STATUTES REFERRED TO

Legal Practitioners Act LFN, 2014.Supreme Court Act, Cap SI5 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004Supreme Court Rules

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT