CENTRAL BANK OF NIGERIA V. BOB KAY NJEMANZE & ORS

CORAM

HELEN MORONKEJI OGUNWUMIJU JSC

EMMANUEL AKOMAYE AGIM JSC

CHIDI NWAOMA UWA JSC

HARUNA SIMON TSAMMANI JSC

MOHAMMED BABA IDRIS JSC

PARTIES

CENTRAL BANK OF NIGERIA

APPELLANTS 

1. BOB KAY NJEMANZE

2. NIGERIA DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION (NDIC)

3. PROGRESS BANK PLC

RESPONDENTS 

AREA(S) OF LAW

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, CIVIL PROCEDURE, GARNISHEE PROCEEDINGS, JUDGMENT ENFORCEMENT, APPEAL, ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, BANKING LAW, JURISDICTIONAL ISSUES, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

SUMMARY OF FACTS

This case concerns a garnishee proceeding initiated by the 1st Respondent (Bob Kay Njemanze) against the Appellant (Central Bank of Nigeria) to enforce a judgment. The 1st Respondent initiated garnishee proceedings on June 13, 2012, at the High Court of Imo State, Owerri Judicial Division. On November 1, 2012, the trial court granted a garnishee order nisi in favor of the 1st Respondent. Subsequently, on April 25, 2013, the trial court granted an order absolute directing the Central Bank of Nigeria to pay the judgment debt of twenty-eight million, one hundred thousand naira (₦28,100,000).

Dissatisfied with this decision, the Appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal, Owerri Division, on the ground that it was a public officer and therefore entitled to the protection of Section 84 of the Sheriff and Civil Processes Act. However, in its appeal, the Appellant raised two issues but only argued one issue, which the Court of Appeal found did not arise from its sole ground of appeal. Consequently, the Court of Appeal, on July 2, 2014, affirmed the decision of the trial court and dismissed the appeal.

Still dissatisfied, the Appellant further appealed to the Supreme Court on August 22, 2014, and later filed an amended Notice of Appeal on October 18, 2017, raising additional grounds, including a challenge to the jurisdiction of the trial court to entertain the garnishee proceedings.

HELD

1.The appeal was dismissed as lacking merit.

2.The Supreme Court upheld the 1st Respondent’s preliminary objection to the Appellant’s second issue, finding that the Appellant had not properly appealed against the Court of Appeal’s decision that the issue of whether the Central Bank of Nigeria is a public officer was not properly raised before it.

3.On the first issue regarding jurisdiction, the Supreme Court held that the High Court of Imo State had jurisdiction to entertain the garnishee proceedings by virtue of Section 287(3) of the 1999 Constitution, which provides that decisions of the Federal High Court, National Industrial Court, High Court, and all other courts established by the Constitution shall be enforced in any part of the Federation.

4.The Supreme Court further held that enforcement of judgment via garnishee proceedings involving government agencies is not one of the items listed under Section 251 of the Constitution that falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal High Court.

5.The parties were ordered to bear their respective costs.

ISSUES

1. WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT HAD JURISDICTION TO ENTERTAIN THE GARNISHEE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE APPELLANT ?

2. WHETHER THE LEARNED JUSTICES OF THE COURT BELOW WERE WRONG IN HOLDING THAT THE APPELLANT IS NOT A PUBLIC OFFICER ?

RATIONES DECIDENDI

EFFECT OF FAILING TO APPEAL AGAINST A SPECIFIC FINDING – ACCEPTANCE OF FINDING AS CORRECT AND BINDING:

“No ground of appeal in the amended notice of this appeal against the said decision of the Court of Appeal complained against its decision dismissing the appeal for the reason that the sole issue argued by the appellant is not derived from the sole ground of appeal, and that, without challenging the decision of the trial Court that the appellant is not a public officer, this issue is completely meaningless. By not appealing against it, the appellant accepted it as correct, conclusive, and binding.” – Per EMMANUEL AKOMAYE AGIM, J.S.C.

JURISDICTION OF HIGH COURTS TO ENFORCE JUDGMENTS – EFFECT OF SECTION 287(3) OF THE 1999 CONSTITUTION:

“The trial Court has the jurisdiction to enforce its judgment or that of Courts of co-ordinate jurisdiction by any legal enforcement process, including garnishee, irrespective of the parties and the subject matter, by virtue of Section 287(3) of the 1999 Constitution, which provides that—

‘The decisions of the Federal High Court, National Industrial Court, a High Court, and all other Courts established by this Constitution shall be enforced in any part of the Federation by all authorities and persons, and by other Courts of law with subordinate jurisdiction to that of the Federal High Court, National Industrial Court, a High Court, and those Courts, respectively.'” – Per EMMANUEL AKOMAYE AGIM, J.S.C.

INCOMPETENT GROUNDS OF APPEAL – EFFECT OF APPEALING AGAINST OBITER DICTUM:

“This decision of the Court of Appeal preliminarily terminated and ended the appeal before it. Whatever the Court said after the above decision is clearly obiter, as the appeal was thereafter no longer subsisting for determination. So, when it thereafter proceeded to determine if the Central Bank of Nigeria is a public officer within the contemplation of Section 84 of the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act, it engaged in an academic exercise or advisory opinion.” – Per EMMANUEL AKOMAYE AGIM, J.S.C.

RAISING JURISDICTIONAL ISSUES AS FRESH ISSUE ON APPEAL – WHEN PERMISSIBLE:

“The first ground of appeal complained that the Court of Appeal erred in law for dismissing the appeal when the trial Court lacked the jurisdiction to entertain the garnishee proceedings by virtue of Section 251(1)(d) of the 1999 Constitution. This issue is a fresh issue, as it is being raised for the first time in ground 1 of this appeal. Being an issue of the subject matter jurisdiction of the trial Court, it can be raised as a fresh issue in this Court without the need for leave of this Court to raise it as a fresh issue.” – Per EMMANUEL AKOMAYE AGIM, J.S.C.

SCOPE OF FEDERAL HIGH COURT’S EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION – LIMITATIONS AND EXTENT:

“The Federal High Court has limited jurisdiction in the sense that it has only so much of the jurisdiction conferred expressly by extant laws, which exist as Acts of the National Assembly under Section 230(2) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, and also under specific sections of the 1999 Constitution, as well as such other jurisdiction as may be conferred on it by future enactments of the National Assembly under Section 230 of the 1999 Constitution.” – Per HELEN MORONKEJI OGUNWUMIJU, J.S.C.

ENFORCEMENT OF JUDGMENTS – EXCLUSION FROM FEDERAL HIGH COURT’S EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION:

“A perusal of the above-cited portion of the Constitution will reveal that enforcement of judgment via garnishee proceedings involving government agencies is not one of the items listed under Section 251 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended). Therefore, the enforcement of a judgment is not within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal High Court.” – Per HELEN MORONKEJI OGUNWUMIJU, J.S.C.

SIGNIFICANCE OF JURISDICTION – FUNDAMENTAL NATURE AND EFFECT OF ABSENCE:

“It has been settled by a plethora of authorities that jurisdiction is considered the ‘life wire’ of any legal proceeding. It is a fundamental requirement for any Court of law to have the authority to hear and decide a case. In the absence of the Court’s jurisdiction to hear and determine a suit, the proceedings so conducted are null and void.“ – Per HELEN MORONKEJI OGUNWUMIJU, J.S.C.

HIERARCHY OF LAWS – SUPREMACY OF CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS OVER PROCEDURAL RULES

“It is pertinent to state at this point that the subject matter of this suit arose from the enforcement of the judgment of the High Court of Imo State. Hence, it is a judgment enforcement procedure. Secondly, both the Federal High Court and the State High Court are Courts of concurrent and coordinate jurisdiction. Thirdly, the Judgment (Enforcement) Rules are made pursuant to the Sheriff and Civil Process Act, Cap. S6, LRN 2004. Both the Rules and the Act cannot supersede Section 272(1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended).” – Per HELEN MORONKEJI OGUNWUMIJU, J.S.C.

PRINCIPLES OF INTERPRETATION – ADHERING TO GRAMMATICAL AND ORDINARY MEANING:

“The law is settled that in construing all written instruments, the grammatical and ordinary words should be adhered to… ‘One of the cardinal rules of construction of written instruments is that the words of a written instrument must, in general, be taken in their ordinary sense, notwithstanding the fact that any such construction may not appear to carry out the purpose which it might otherwise be supposed was intended by the maker or makers of the instrument.'” – Per HELEN MORONKEJI OGUNWUMIJU, J.S.C.

VENUE FOR GARNISHEE PROCEEDINGS – INTERPRETATION OF ORDER VIII RULE 2 OF JUDGMENT ENFORCEMENT RULES:

“A careful reading of this order does not, by any stretch of imagination, suggest that the enforcement of a judgment of the High Court cannot be made in that Court.” – Per HELEN MORONKEJI OGUNWUMIJU, J.S.C.

AUTHORITY OF STATE HIGH COURTS TO ENFORCE JUDGMENTS – IRRELEVANCE OF FEDERAL AGENCY’S INVOLVEMENT:

“In interpreting Section 287(3) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended), and Order VIII, Rule 2(a) and (b) of the Judgment (Enforcement) Rules, it is clear that the High Court of Imo State, or any other High Court under their High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, can enforce their judgment. It is irrelevant that one of the parties involved is a Federal Government agent or agency.” – Per HELEN MORONKEJI OGUNWUMIJU, J.S.C.

INCOMPETENT APPEAL – FAILURE TO PROPERLY FORMULATE ISSUES FROM GROUNDS OF APPEAL:

“Concerning the sole issue argued in the appellant’s brief, the Court of Appeal held thusly—

‘Appellant’s sole notice of appeal challenged the findings of the trial Court that the appellant is not a public officer. The sole issue argued on behalf of the appellant is on the non-application of Section 84 of the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act in favor of the appellant, who is a public officer. This issue clearly does not arise from the ground of appeal.'” – Per EMMANUEL AKOMAYE AGIM, J.S.C.

ACADEMIC ISSUES – EFFECT OF DETERMINATION AFTER PRELIMINARY DISMISSAL OF AN APPEAL:

“Whatever the Court said after the above decision is clearly obiter, as the appeal was thereafter no longer subsisting for determination. So, when it thereafter proceeded to determine if the Central Bank of Nigeria is a public officer within the contemplation of Section 84 of the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act, it engaged in an academic exercise or advisory opinion.” – Per EMMANUEL AKOMAYE AGIM, J.S.C.

CASES CITED

STATUTES REFERRED TO

1.Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) – Sections 230(2), 251(1), 272(1), 287(3)

2.Sheriff and Civil Process Act, Cap. S6, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004 – Section 84

3.Judgment (Enforcement) Rules – Order VIII, Rule 2(a) and (b)

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT