CBN. v. APPAH (2020)

CBN. v. APPAH

(2020)LCN/14063(CA)

In The Court Of Appeal

(KADUNA JUDICIAL DIVISION)

On Friday, March 20, 2020

CA/K/371/2017

Before Our Lordships:

Saidu Tanko Hussaini Justice of the Court of Appeal

Oludotun Adebola Adefope-Okojie Justice of the Court of Appeal

James Gambo Abundaga Justice of the Court of Appeal

Between

CENTRAL BANK OF NIGERIA APPELANT(S)

And

KIMI APPAH ESQUIRE RESPONDENT(S)

RATIO

WHETHER OR NOT THE CENTRAL BANK OF NIGERIA (CBN) IS A PUBLIC OFFICER

The question whether the Central Bank of Nigeria is a public officer has also given rise to a number of conflicting decisions.
Authorities in favour of classifying the Central Bank as a public officer for the purpose of obtaining the prior consent of the Attorney General of the Federation before execution can be levied against it, are such cases as CBN v Njemanze (2015) 4 NWLR Part 1448 Page 276, Sharika v Government of Kaduna State (2013) LPELR-20379 (CA), CBN v Zakari (2018) LPELR-44751(CA) and the unreported decisions of CBN v Igbadoo, Appeal No. CA/MK/187/2017 and CBN v Aminu Lawal Atana CA/K/110/2018.
On the other side of the divide, in which the CBN was classified not as a public officer and thus not requiring the consent of the Attorney General, are decisions such as CBN v Kakuri (2016) LPELR 41468 CA;. CBN v Interstella Communications Ltd (2015) 8 NWLR Part 1462 Page 456.
I shall consider the said authorities.
In the former category classifying Central Bank of Nigeria as a public officer and thus requiring the prior consent of the Attorney General to attach funds in its custody are the following cases:
In CBN v Kakuri (2016) LPELR-41468(CA), the Abuja Division of this Court, per Agim JCA held as follows:
“The term “public officer” in the S.84 of the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act must be interpreted purposively to include the public office or department of government in which the public officer works. This is because he is a public officer by virtue of his employment in the public office or government department. Secondly the public office or government department being an abstract and inanimate entity that carries out its public duties through its officers. In the case of the appellant, it is established by statute as an institution of government. It is a bankers bank and banker to government, it custodies bank deposits and deposits from Government and its ministries, departments, parastatals and agencies. It designates officers to carry out specific duties. It custodies the deposits and funds through officers assigned the specific task of handling the custody of such funds. So the officers in its employment are its agent. By acting through its employees, it acts by itself (qui facit per alium facit perse). So a reference to its employees in the discharge of the official duty, amounts to a reference to it. PER ADEFOPE-OKOJIE, J.C.A.

WHETHER OR NOT A JUDGEMENT CREDITOR WHO CHOOSES TO RECOVER A JUDGEMENT BY MEANS OF GARNISHEE PROCEEDINGS, MUST OBTAIN THE CONSENT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BEFORE COMMENCING THE PROCEEDINGS
By virtue of S.84 of the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act, a judgment Creditor who chooses to recover a judgment by means of garnishee proceedings, if the funds sought to be attached by garnishee order is in the custody or control of a public officer in his official capacity, must first obtain the consent of the relevant Attorney General to attach such funds by garnishee before commencing the proceeding. A garnishee proceeding cannot validly commence and or the Court would lack the jurisdiction to entertain it or make the order sought without the consent of the relevant Attorney General to such attachment having been first had and obtained. The consent of the Attorney General to the attachment of such funds is obviously a condition to a competent garnishee process and a valid exercise of jurisdiction to entertain it and issue the relevant orders. See Central Bank of Nigeria V. Hydro Air Pty Ltd (supra), Onjewu V. Kogi State Ministry of Commerce Industry (Supra) and Government of Akwa Ibom State V. Powercom Nig. Ltd (Supra). PER ADEFOPE-OKOJIE, J.C.A.

WHETHER OR NOT THE CENTRAL BANK OF NIGERIA (CBN) IS A PUBLIC OFFICER

The decision of the Supreme Court in CBN V. Interstella Communications Ltd (2018) 7 NWLR (pt. 1618) 294 has put paid, all the raging controversies as to whether the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) is a “Public Officer” or not, with this decision, it is now the law that the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) is not a “Public Officer” within the meaning of Section 84(1) of the Sheriff and Civil Process Act, as distinguished from the Supreme Court decision in IBRAHIM V. JUDICIAL SERVICE COMMISSION, KADUNA STATE, (1998) LPELR – 1408 (SC) where the provision of Section 84(1) of the Sherriff and Civil Process Act was not considered. The effect of the decision in CBN v. Interstella (supra) is that the prior consent of the Attorney- General of the Federation is not necessary before execution can be levied against the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN). PER HUSSAINI, J.C.A.

OLUDOTUN ADEBOLA ADEFOPE-OKOJIE, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): The facts leading to this appeal from the decision of E.Y.B. Lolo J of the High Court of Justice Kaduna State (hereafter called “the lower Court”), are that the Respondent, Kimi Appah Esq., instituted an action for the enforcement of his fundamental rights against Daniel E Itanyi, C.S.P Uko (RTD), A.S.P Ibrahim Yaro, Deputy C.O.P, Force Criminal Investigation Department, Annex Kaduna and Inspector General of Police. In the action, the Respondent herein sought certain declarations against them, as well as the sum of N 5,000,000.00 (Five Million Naira) as damages jointly and severally against them for violation of his fundamental right to freedom of movement and personal liberty; for harassment, intimidation, defamation of character, violation of human dignity and oppression, suffered by him at the instance of the Respondents therein.

In its Judgment, the lower Court awarded, inter alia, the sum of N1,000,000 (One Million Naira) each against three of the Respondents therein, namely A.S.P Ibrahim Yaro, Deputy C.O.P, Force Criminal Investigation Department Annex, Kaduna

and the Inspector General of Police as exemplary damages for the violation of the Respondent’s fundamental rights.

Seeking the execution of the judgment, the Respondent filed a Motion Ex-Parte on 30th January 2017 before the lower Court for the following:
“AN ORDER attaching all monies in account number 0020458842028 – Police Formations and Command Capital or any accounts belonging to the 5th Respondent/Judgment Debtor domiciled with the garnishee or so much thereof as may be sufficient to satisfy the judgment sum of N2,000,000 (Two Million Naira)
AN ORDER attaching the 5th Judgment Debtor shares of monies in the Single Treasury Account (TSA) of the Federal Government of Nigeria domicile (sic) with the garnishee or so much thereof as may be sufficient to satisfy the Judgment sum of N2,000,000 (Two Million Naira)
AN ORDER that the Garnishee appears before this Honourable Court to show cause why an order should not be made against them for payment to the Judgment Creditor the debt due and owing from them to the 5th Judgment Debtor or so much thereof as may be sufficient to satisfied (sic) the debt due under the judgment together

with the interest and cost in the sum of N2,000,000 (Two Million Naira)”

The orders were granted by the lower Court on 31 January, 2017. On being served with these orders, the Appellant filed a Notice of Preliminary Objection on the ground that the orders were without jurisdiction, as the consent of the Attorney General of the Federation was not sought and obtained before the Respondent commenced the garnishee proceedings. The Court, however, dismissed the Appellant`s Preliminary Objection, holding that the Appellant is not a Public Officer and that the Respondent did not have to first seek the consent or the fiat of the Attorney General before applying for the issuance of the Order Nisi. It proceeded to make its Order Nisi, Absolute.

Dissatisfied, the Appellant filed two (2) Notices of Appeal dated 15 May, 2017 and 23 June, 2017 respectively. At the hearing of the appeal on 30/1/20, the Appellant’s Counsel withdrew the former Notice, relying instead on the latter one.

A sole issue was formulated by the Appellant’s Counsel, Godwin Udondiah, Esq. in the Appellant’s Brief filed on 19/7/17, to wit:
Whether the Central

Bank of Nigeria (Appellant herein) is a Public Officer for purposes of garnishee proceedings against it?

The Respondent’s Counsel, in the Amended Respondent’s Brief filed on 24/4/19 but deemed properly filed on 11/2/19, prepared by Kimi Livingstone Appah, Esq. contended that the Appellant’s issue was not tied to the Ground of Appeal and thus incompetent, distilling instead the following as the sole issue arising, namely:
Whether or not the jurisdiction of the lower Court was properly invoked when the Court issued the order Nisi and subsequently made it (Order Nisi) “absolute” against the Appellant?

I disagree with the learned Counsel to the Respondent that the issue formulated by the Appellant’s Counsel does not arise from the ground of appeal filed. This is because the ground of appeal restated the decision of the lower Court and in the Particulars of Error following, gave a history of decisions which deliberated on the definition of a “public officer” and whether the Appellant is a person in law. The issue thus properly arises from the Ground of Appeal filed, I hold.

In any event this same

issue was the same addressed by the Respondent’s Counsel in his Brief of Arguments under the issue formulated by him. This contention thus goes to no purpose.

Being more succinct, I shall adopt the Appellant’s issue as that which arises for determination, to wit:
Whether the Central Bank of Nigeria is a Public Officer for purposes of garnishee proceedings against it?

The ruling of the lower Court on this issue is as follows:
“I am more amenable to adopting the arguments proffered by the Judgment Creditor that the Central Bank, being a Federal Government public entity, could not have being (sic) in the contemplation of the framers of the Public Officers’ Protection Law, the subject in the case of IBRAHIM V. JSC (Supra). It is therefore my considered view that for the purpose of the instant garnishee proceedings and upon the fact that the Central Bank acts as a banker to the Federal Government (especially with the new policy of STA (sic)) and having opined that the Central Bank is not a public officer, the Judgment Creditor did not in my view have to first seek the consent or the fiat of the Attorney General before applying

for the issuance of the Order Nisi, the subject matter of this application as contended by the learned counsel to the objector. The jurisdiction of this Court was therefore properly invoked and same was duly exercised when it issued the Order Nisi. In summary I find no merit in this objection, same is overruled and accordingly dismissed. In consequence therefore the Order Nisi made against the Garnishee, Central Bank of Nigeria by this Court on the 1st February 2017 is hereby made ABSOLUTE”

Disagreeing with this decision, the learned Counsel to the Appellant, citing Sections 1, 2 and 4 of the Central Bank of Nigeria (Establishment) Act Cap C4, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004, submitted that the Appellant is a statutory body with perpetual succession and a common seal and may sue and be sued in its corporate name. It is wholly owned by the Federal Government, to provide public service as set out in Section 2 of the Act in the discharge of its public office. He submitted that the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act does not provide for who or what a public officer is. He referred to Section 18(1) of the Interpretation Act which provides that the

expression “Public Officer” is defined to mean: a member of a Public Service of the Federation within the meaning of the Constitution 1999 (as amended). He cited Section 318 (1(e)) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) on the meaning of public service. He also cited the reported cases of Central Bank of Nigeria V. James Ejembi Okefe (2015) LPELR- 24825 (CA), Central Bank of Nigeria V. Alh. Mohammed Kakuri (2016) LPELR- 41469 (CA), Alao V. V.C Unilorin (2008) 1 NWLR (PT 1069) 421 and Adigun V. Ayinde (1993) 8 NWLR (PT. 315) 534. He submitted that earlier decisions which are contrary to these decisions, being earlier in time, are superceded by the later decisions.

He submitted, in consequence, that the Appellant being a public officer, the consent of the Attorney General of the Federation was required for attachment of its debts by garnishee proceedings, by reason of Section 84 of the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act Supra. He produced unreported decisions of this Court, viz Central Bank of Nigeria v Aminu Lawal Atana CA/K/110/2018 and Central Bank of Nigeria v Philip Shagbaa Igbadoo CA/MK/187/2017.

The Respondent’s Counsel cited Section 18(1) of the Interpretation Act Supra for the definition of “public officer” and Section 318 of the Constitution for the definition of “public service” and also the case of Aso Tim Doz Investment Co. Ltd v Abuja Markets Management Ltd (2016) LPELR-40367(CA), submitting that a public officer is the holder of a public office. Thus while a staff of CBN may be a public officer, CBN may be referred to as “public office”. A public officer, by Section 318 of the Constitution, Paragraph 19 of the Fifth Schedule to the Constitution and Section 18(1) of the Interpretation Act all point to the fact that a public officer is a holder of a public office. Counsel further cited the CBN Act Cap C.4 2004. He again referred to the cases of CBN v Njemanze (2015) 4 NWLR Part 1449 Page 276 at 288, Sharika & Sons Ltd v Government of Kaduna State (2013) LPELR 20379, CBN v Interstella Communication Ltd (2015) 8 NWLR Part 1462 at Page 399 and some unreported cases. He contended that the Appellant, not being a public officer but a statutory body, consent of the Attorney General of the Federation is not

required to commence garnishee proceedings against it.

He distinguished the cases cited by the Appellant’s Counsel, submitting that based on the single treasury account policy operating in Nigeria and based on the fact that funds belonging to Government agencies and departments of Government are now being kept with the Garnishee, the Central Bank is no longer bankers banks but also banks to agencies of government. The lower Court thus has the power and jurisdiction to enforce its judgment as it did. The authorities cited, he submitted, did not consider, neither did the parties raise, the issue of single treasury account. The Court did not also consider the viability of the single treasury account in relation to the status of the Appellant. Those cases are accordingly distinguished. The Appellant did not appeal against the findings of the lower Court that the CBN is no longer only Federal Government’s Bank but banks to other institutions or departments and can thus not raise it on appeal.

Section 84 of the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act Supra provides as follows:
1. Where money liable to be attached by garnishee proceedings is in the

custody or under the control of a public officer in his official capacity or in custodia legis, the order nisi shall not be made under the provisions of the last preceding section unless consent to such attachment is first obtained from the appropriate officer in the case of money in the custody or control of a public officer or of the Court in the case of money in custodia legis, as the case may be.
2. In such cases the order of notice must be served on such public officer or on the registrar of the Court, as the case may be.
3. In this section, “appropriate officer” means-
a. in relation to money which is in the custody of a public officer who holds a public office in the public service of the Federation, the Attorney-General of the Federation;
b. in relation to money which is in the custody of a public officer who holds a public office in the public service of the State, the Attorney-General of the State.
“Public Officer” was defined in Section 18(1) of the Interpretation Act to mean:
“a member of the public service of the Federation within the meaning of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria or

of the public service of a State;”
While a “public officer” was not defined in the Constitution, “public service of the Federation” was defined in Section 318 to mean:
“the service of the Federation in any capacity in respect of the Government of the Federation and includes service such as –
(c) member of staff of any commission or authority established for the Federation by this Constitution or by an Act of the National Assembly;
(e) staff of any statutory corporation established by an Act of the National Assembly;
(g) staff of any company or enterprise in which the Government of the Federation or its agency owns controlling shares or interest financed principally by the Government;
In Paragraph 19 of the 5th Schedule to the Constitution of Nigeria Supra, “public officer” was defined as “a person holding any of the offices specified in Part 11 of this schedule”
The interpretation of these statutes and in particular whether an office whose members are public officers, thereby becomes a public officer for the purpose of obtaining the consent of the Attorney

General before garnishee proceedings can be instituted, has resulted in conflicting decisions.
The question whether the Central Bank of Nigeria is a public officer has also given rise to a number of conflicting decisions.
Authorities in favour of classifying the Central Bank as a public officer for the purpose of obtaining the prior consent of the Attorney General of the Federation before execution can be levied against it, are such cases as CBN v Njemanze (2015) 4 NWLR Part 1448 Page 276, Sharika v Government of Kaduna State (2013) LPELR-20379 (CA), CBN v Zakari (2018) LPELR-44751(CA) and the unreported decisions of CBN v Igbadoo, Appeal No. CA/MK/187/2017 and CBN v Aminu Lawal Atana CA/K/110/2018.
On the other side of the divide, in which the CBN was classified not as a public officer and thus not requiring the consent of the Attorney General, are decisions such as CBN v Kakuri (2016) LPELR 41468 CA;. CBN v Interstella Communications Ltd (2015) 8 NWLR Part 1462 Page 456.
I shall consider the said authorities.
In the former category classifying Central Bank of Nigeria as a public officer and thus requiring the prior consent of the

Attorney General to attach funds in its custody are the following cases:
In CBN v Kakuri (2016) LPELR-41468(CA), the Abuja Division of this Court, per Agim JCA held as follows:
“The term “public officer” in the S.84 of the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act must be interpreted purposively to include the public office or department of government in which the public officer works. This is because he is a public officer by virtue of his employment in the public office or government department. Secondly the public office or government department being an abstract and inanimate entity that carries out its public duties through its officers. In the case of the appellant, it is established by statute as an institution of government. It is a bankers bank and banker to government, it custodies bank deposits and deposits from Government and its ministries, departments, parastatals and agencies. It designates officers to carry out specific duties. It custodies the deposits and funds through officers assigned the specific task of handling the custody of such funds. So the officers in its employment are its agent. By acting through its employees, it acts by

itself (qui facit per alium facit perse). So a reference to its employees in the discharge of the official duty, amounts to a reference to it.
By virtue of S.84 of the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act, a judgment Creditor who chooses to recover a judgment by means of garnishee proceedings, if the funds sought to be attached by garnishee order is in the custody or control of a public officer in his official capacity, must first obtain the consent of the relevant Attorney General to attach such funds by garnishee before commencing the proceeding. A garnishee proceeding cannot validly commence and or the Court would lack the jurisdiction to entertain it or make the order sought without the consent of the relevant Attorney General to such attachment having been first had and obtained. The consent of the Attorney General to the attachment of such funds is obviously a condition to a competent garnishee process and a valid exercise of jurisdiction to entertain it and issue the relevant orders. See Central Bank of Nigeria V. Hydro Air Pty Ltd (supra), Onjewu V. Kogi State Ministry of Commerce Industry (Supra) and Government of Akwa Ibom State V. Powercom Nig. Ltd.

(Supra).
It is not in dispute that the consent of the Attorney General of the Federation to attach the said funds in the custody of the appellant was not obtained before the motion ex parte applying for the garnishee order Nisi was filed and the order nisi made. So the application for the order nisi was incompetent and the Court lacked the jurisdiction to make the order nisi. Such an order nisi is a nullity. No competent or valid garnishee proceedings can be based on a void garnishee order nisi.”
In CBN v Hydro Air Pty Ltd (2014) 16 NWLR Parts 1434 Page 482, the Lagos Division of this Court held, per Iyizoba JCA at Page 522, Para B- E, as follows:
“Section 318 of the 1999 Constitution on which the Cross-Appellant has placed reliance to contend that reference to public officer in Section 84 of the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act cannot include the Cross-Respondent defines “public service of the Federation” to include “staff of any statutory corporation established by an Act of the National Assembly”. There is in fact no doubt that this definition includes officials of the Central Bank of Nigeria. When this provision is examined

critically vis a vis the provision of Section 84 of the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act, it will be seen that funds in the coffers of the Central Bank of Nigeria are actually funds in the custody or under the control of a public officer in his official capacity. This is because the Central Bank of Nigeria is an artificial entity and it is the officials of the body that control the money or funds in the coffers of the entity. Based on this fact, I am unable to accept the contention of the Cross-appellant that the provisions of Section 84 of the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act are not applicable to the facts of this case.” Emphasis theirs
In CBN v Zakari (2018) LPELR-44751(CA), the Kaduna Division of this Court, held, per Bdliya JCA as follows:
“…Having held that the appellant is a public officer, what is to be considered is, whether the lower Court was right in granting the garnishee Order Nisi of 24th of October, 2016, and making it absolute on the 27th of April, 2017…. Section 84 of the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act (reproduced supra) provides for a condition precedent to the commencement of garnishee proceedings seeking for an

order of attachment of monies intended to be attached in satisfaction of any judgment-debt where the money is in custody of a public officer.
For a Court of law to exercise its jurisdiction or be vested with the jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate any matter where there is a condition precedent to the commencement of such action, that condition must be satisfied, else the Court would be without the required jurisdiction to adjudicate upon such matter. …So the application for the order nisi was incompetent and the Court lacked the lacked the jurisdiction to make the order nisi. Such an order nisi is a nullity.”
In support of the latter position that the Central Bank is not a public officer and does not require the consent of the Attorney General, the Kaduna Division of this Court, in Sharika v Government of Kaduna State (2013) LPELR-20379 (CA) per Aboki JCA, adopted the meaning of “public officer” to “only relate to the holders of the offices as reflected in Section 318(1) of the 1999 Constitution.”
In CBN v Njemanze (2015) 4 NWLR Part 1448 Page 276, per Agbo JCA at Page 287 Para E-F, determined by the Owerri

Division of this Court, the importance of Section 84 of the Sheriff and Civil Process Act Supra was stated to be, “to avoid embarrassment of not knowing that funds earmarked for some purposes have been diverted in satisfaction of a judgment debt which the government may not know anything about”. The Court held, in reliance on the case of Sharika v Government of Kaduna State Supra that it was “unacceptable to classify CBN as public officers because it acts as a banker to the Federal Government in respect of credit balances in the accounts of the Federal Government of Nigeria.”
In CBN v Interstella Communications Ltd (2015) 8 NWLR Part 1462 Page 456 at 506 Para D-G, the Owerri Division of this Court, per Abba Aji JCA (as she then was), held as follows:
“I definitely do not have a problem with classifying the officers of the Central Bank of Nigeria as public officers but I find it unacceptable to classify Central Bank of Nigeria as public officers because it acts as a banker to the Federal Government in respect of credit balances in the accounts of the Federal Government of Nigeria. See Section 36 and 39 of the Act. Thus

for the purpose of garnishee proceedings, the Central Bank of Nigeria acts as a banker to the Federal Government as encapsulated in Section 2(e), 36 and 39 of the Central Bank Act of Nigeria respectively. This also receives judicial backing in the case of Purification Tech. Nig Ltd v AG Lagos State (2004) 9 NWLR Part 879 Page 665 at 679-680, wherein it held that the relationship of a banker and its customer is contractual, hence there is no basis for treating government bank accounts separately. This is why the Central Bank of Nigeria also acts as a banker as provided in Section 41 of the Central Bank of Nigeria Act.”
This decision was affirmed by the Supreme Court in CBN v Interstella Communications Ltd (2018) 7 NWLR Part 1618 Page 294.
The Court, in the lead judgment of Ogunbiyi JSC at Page 344 Para A and 346-347 Para D–A, held as follows:
“The 4th issue that came up for determination in that appeal was whether the lower Court was right when it held that the Appellant herein is not a public officer and hence the AGF’s consent as required under Section 84(1) does not apply herein… I have ruled that the

relationship between the Appellant and the 3rd and 4th Respondents is that of Banker and customer relationship. In other words and as rightly argued by 1st and 2nd Respondents’ Counsel, the Appellant is not a public officer in the context of Section 84 SCPA, when regard is had to the history of this appeal. Section 84 has been reproduced earlier in the course of this judgment. It is apparent herein, on the facts of this case that the CBN acts as a Banker to the Federal Government Funds with respect to government funds in its custody. Section 2(e) of the CBN Act provides thus:
“act as a banker and provide economic and financial advice to the Federal Government.”
Section 36 of the CBN Act also provides:
“The Bank shall receive and disburse Federal Government moneys and keep accounts thereof.”
The appellant does not stand as public officer in this situation. Therefore, it follows that the need to seek the consent of the Attorney-General of the Federation does not arise. Relevant to this conclusion is again the persuasive authority of CBN V. Ekong (supra) cited also by the appellant’s counsel wherein Fabiyi, JCA (as he then was) held thus on

his consideration of the purpose for establishing the CBN:
“Generally, it is for overall control and administration of the monetary and banking policies of the Federal Government … It is not established for commercial or profit making purpose…”
The case of Purification Tech. (Nig) Ltd. v. AG Lagos State (supra) is also on all fours with the facts of the case under consideration herein. Again the persuasive judgment of the Court of Appeal at pages 679-680 is relevant and said “…There is absolutely no basis for treating government bank accounts any differently from bank accounts of every other juristic personality or customers…”
In resolving the 4th issue against the appellant, I hold the strong view that the consent of the 3rd and 4th Respondents was adequately obtained by the 1st and 2nd Respondents, and the Garnishee Proceedings was competently commenced. Further still on the relationship between the 3rd Respondent and the appellant in this case, same is purely that of a Banker to a customer. Therefore, the question of whether the Appellant is a public officer, who cannot release funds except the consent of the AGF is obtained, does not

apply to the facts and circumstances of this case”
It is clear from this latter position that the Central Bank of Nigeria is considered not only the Federal Government’s bank but being a bank to other institutions or arms of Government, should not be treated different from other banks. By these authorities it is not a public officer and its consent is not needed for garnishee proceedings to issue for funds in its custody.
The Supreme Court, having decided as it did in the case of CBN v Interstella Communications Ltd above, and being a superior Court to this Court, this Court, by the doctrine of judicial precedence must adopt this position. See Nigeria Agip Oil Company Ltd v Nkweke (2016) 7 NWLR Part 1512 Page 588 at 617 Para B-D per I.T. Muhammad JSC (as he then was); CBN v. Okojie (2015) 14 NWLR Part 1479 Page 231 at 263 Para G; (2015) All FWLR Page 478 at 506 Para E-F per Rhodes-Vivour JSC.
The consequence of this is that the Appellant is not a public officer but is a banker to the Garnishee. In consequence Section 84 of the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act is not applicable, with no requirement for the Respondent to obtain the prior

consent of the Attorney General to attach the moneys of the Appellant with it (Central Bank).
This is undoubtedly an uncomfortable position for the for 5th Judgment Debtor, the Inspector General of Police to have, as, without the consent of the Attorney-General of the Federation first had and obtained, the Force’s funds with the CBN can be attached in satisfaction of judgment debts. This will however serve as a warning to the Inspector-General to rein in his erring officers whose acts have the propensity of resulting in financial damage to the force.

In consequence, the sole issue for determination is resolved against the Appellant. This appeal accordingly fails and is dismissed. The decision of the lower Court given on 12th of May 2017 is consequently affirmed. Each party shall bear its respective costs.

SAIDU TANKO HUSSAINI, J.C.A.: I am in agreement with the reasoning and the conclusion in the lead judgment.

Officer” or not, with this decision, it is now the law that the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) is not a “Public Officer” within the meaning of Section 84(1) of the Sheriff and Civil Process Act, as distinguished from the Supreme Court decision in IBRAHIM V. JUDICIAL SERVICE COMMISSION, KADUNA STATE, (1998) LPELR – 1408 (SC) where the provision of Section 84(1) of the Sherriff and Civil Process Act was not considered. The effect of the decision in CBN v. Interstella (supra) is that the prior consent of the Attorney- General of the Federation is not necessary before execution can be levied against the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN).

JAMES GAMBO ABUNDAGA, J.C.A.: I have read the draft of the judgment delivered by my learned brother, Oludotun Adebola Adefope-Okojie JCA.

I agree with reasoning and conclusion reached in the judgment. The appeal therefore fails and is hereby dismissed.

Appearances:

GODWIN UDONDIAH, ESQ., with him, SEGUN JIMOH, ESQ. For Appellant(s)

AVONG D. EMMANUEL, ESQ. For Respondent(s)