CBN v. JOD PARTNERSHIP LTD & ANOR (2021)

CBN v. JOD PARTNERSHIP LTD & ANOR

(2021)LCN/15031(CA)

In The Court Of Appeal

(ABUJA JUDICIAL DIVISION)

On Friday, February 05, 2021

CA/A/193/2019

RATIO

BRIEF: EFFECT OF FAILURE OF RESPONDENT TO FILE BRIEF OF ARGUMENT ON THE CASE

The law is trite that the fact that a Respondent did not file Brief of Argument would not translate to automatic win or success to the Appellant. The merit or otherwise of the Appeal must the judicially and judiciously examined, see: (1) UNITY BANK PLC V. BOUARI (2008) NWLR (PART 1086) 372 at 403 F – G per OGBUAGU, JSC who said:
“In a line of decided authorities, it has been held that the failure of respondent, to file a reply brief, is immaterial. This is because an appellant will succeed on the strength of his case. But respondent will be deemed to have admitted the truth of everything stated in the appellant’s brief in so far as such is borne out by the records. In other words, it is not automatic. An appellant, must succeed or fail on his own brief. See the cases of John Holt Ventures Ltd. v. Oputa (1996) 9 NWLR (Pt. 470) 101 CA.; Onyejekwe v. The Nigeria Police Council (1996) 7 NWLR (Pt. 463) 704 C.A.; Waziri v. Waziri (1998) 1 NWLR (Pt. 533) 322 CA. and UB.A. Plc v. Ajileye (1999) 13 NWLR (Pt. 633) 116 C. A. Just to mention but a few.”
2. OGBU V. STATE 2007 SC (PART 1028) page.
3. SKYE BANK ANOR V. AKINPELU 2010 (PART 1198) page 179. PER PETER OLABISI IGE, J.C.A.

GARNISHEE PROCEEDINGS: ESSENCE, MEANING AND INTENDMENT OF A GARNISHEE PROCEEDINGS

The whole essence, meaning and intendment of a garnishee proceedings and procedure have been explained recently by the superior Court in the land. I refer the following cases:-
1. GUARANTY TRUST BANK PLC VS INNOSON NIGERIA LIMITED (2017) 16 NWLR (PART 1591) 181 AT 197 F-H TO 198 A – H per EKO, JSC who said:-
“Let me preface this discourse with a statement on what in law, garnishee proceeding is. It is a process of enforcing a money Judgment by the seizure or attachment of the debts due or accruing to the Judgment debtor, which form part of his property available in execution. The third party holds the debt or property of the judgment debtor. By this process, the Court orders the third party to pay direct to the judgment creditor or to the Court the debt due or accruing from him to judgment debtor, as much of it as may be sufficient to satisfy the amount of the judgment debt and the cost of the garnishee proceedings. See Words of Phrases Legally Defined 3rd Ed. Vol. 2, pages 313-314 cited by Akintan, JS, in his concurring Judgment in Union Bank of Nigeria Plc v. Boney Marcus Industries Ltd. (2005) 13 NWLR (Pt. 943) 654 at page 666. Lord Denning, Mr. in Choice Investment Ltd. v. Jerotninlmon (1981) QB 149 at 154— 155, gives a simple illustration of garnishee proceeding thus: –
“A creditor is owed 100pounds by a debtor. The debtor does not pay. The creditor then gets Judgment against him for the £100. Still the debtor does not pay. The creditor then discovers that the debtor is a customer of a bank and that he has 150pounds at his bank. The creditor can get a “garnishee” order against the bank by which the bank is required to pay into the Court or direct to the Judgment creditor) out of the customer’s 150pounds – the 100pounds which he owes to the creditor”
The Master of the Rolls went on, in the case, to state further:
“There are two steps in the process. The first is a garnishee order nisi. Nisi is Norman-French. means “unless”. It is an order upon the bank to pay 100pounds to the judgment creditor or into Court within a stated time, unless there is some sufficient reason why the bank should not do so. Such reason may exist if the bank disputes its indebtedness to the customer for some or other. Or if payment to this creditor might be unfair to prefer him to other creditors: See Pritchard v. Westminister 1 (1969) ALL ER 999 and Rainbow v. Mdortgate Properties Ltd. (1975) 2 ALL ER 821. If no sufficient reason appears, the garnishee order is made absolute to pay to the Judgment creditor or into the Court: whichever is more appropriate. On making the payment, the bank gets a good discharge from its indebtedness to its own customer Just as if he himself directed the bank to pay it”. I did this detour for a purpose. That is, to show that garnishee proceedings is not a process employed by the garnishee to fight a proxy war against the judgment creditor on behalf of the judgment debtor. Accordingly, it does not avail the garnishee to contest the merits of the judgment culminating in the judgment debt. It does not; therefore, lie in the power or right of the garnishee to contumaciously attack the main judgment which the Judgment creditor and the Judgment debtor have accepted or are deemed to have accepted, and/or which they have submitted themselves to.”
2.BARBEDOS VENTURES LTD V FIRST BANK OF NIGERIA PLC (2018) 4 NWLR (PART 1609) 241 AT 270H 272 A – C per AUGIE, JSC who said:-
“However before resolving the main issue, there is an underlying and threshold procedural and jurisdictional (party) issue to be resolved whether the respondent is a proper garnishee in these circumstances?
To start with, garnishee proceedings are governed by the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act, and Section 83(1) thereof provides as follows-
“The Court may, upon the ex parte application of any person who is entitled to the benefit of a judgment for the recovery or payment of money, either before or after any oral examination of the debtor liable under such judgment and upon affidavit by the applicant or his legal practitioner that judgment has been recovered and that is, is still unsatisfied and to what amount, and that any other person is indebted to such debtor and is within the State, order that debts owing from such third person, hereinafter called the garnishee to such debtor shall be attached to satisfy the judgment or order, together with the costs of the garnishee proceedings and by the same or any subsequent order it may be ordered that the garnishee shall appear before the Court to show cause why he should not pay to the person who has obtained such judgment or order the debt due from him to such debtor or so much thereof as may be sufficient to satisfy the judgment or order together with costs aforesaid:-
A garnishee is, therefore, a debtor to the judgment debtor see Skye Bank v. Colombara & Anor (2014) 2 BFLR 177 (2015) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1453) 538, wherein it was held:
“A garnishee is essentially a third party, who being indebted to the judgment debtor or having custody of his money and who at the instance of the judgment creditor is being called upon to pay the Judgment debt from his indebtedness to the judgment debtor from the creditor of the judgment debtor in the account thereof with the third party.”

The third party envisaged as a prospective garnishee under Section 83 of the said Sheriffs and Civil Processes Act must be a person, who holds sums amounting to “debts due or accruing to the judgment debtor” C. B. N. v. Auto Import Export & Anor (2012) 4 BFLR 1, 34: (2013) 2 NWLR (Pt. 1337) 80. Thus, banks/bankers have become the typical garnishee given the nature of a banker-customer relationship. The nature of the relationship between a banker and his customer is contractual – Linton Industrial Training (Nig.) Ltd. v Central & Anor. (2014) 1 BFLR 231 at 233; (2015) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1448) 94. See also Akwule v. Queen (2012) BFLR 90, where this Court stated:-
“The relationship between a banker and customer is that of debtor and creditor in respect of the money deposited with the banker by the customer. This position becomes clearer when a customer asks for his money. The bank undertakes to pay cheques of the customer drawn on his current account; thus the bank becomes a debtor for the amount, which must be paid on demand. If the amount is not paid, the customer can sue the bank.”

“Debt” and “Debtor” have also been explained for purposes of a Garnishee proceedings in the said case on pages 295 F-H to 296 A-H the report by my Lord PETER-ODILI, JSC who said:-
“Aligned with the above principles and situating them contextually with the facts of this case and the wordings of Section 83 of the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act, it is clear that the intention of the legislature in setting up the procedure of recovery of debt by garnishee such as the one in contest in this case, envisions that the money available to be garnisheed is debt owing from such third person to the judgment debtor which could arise in four ways as follows:-
1. That judgment has been recovered against a judgment debtor which judgment had remained unsatisfied:
2. That a third party known as the garnishee is indebted to the judgment debtor;
3. That an order is made by a Court of competent jurisdiction that debts owing from such third person, called the garnishee, to such debtor be attached to satisfy the judgment or order; and;
4. That the Court after making the order of attachment, either by the same or any subsequent order, makes an order that the garnishee appears before the Court to show cause why the garnishee should not pay to the judgment creditor the debt due from the garnishee to the judgment debtor or so much it as may be sufficient to satisfy the judgment.”
Uwaifo JCA (as he then was) well captured the procedure above stated when interpreting Section 81 of the Sheriffs and Civil Processes Law which is an impart materia to the current Section 83 of the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act in the cases of: United Bank for Africa Limited v. Societe Generate Bank Limited & 3 Ors (1996) 10 NWLR (Pt. 478) page 381 at 390, paras A B thus:-
“By the process of garnishee, the Court has power under Section 81 of the Sheriffs and Civil Process Law to order a third person to pay direct to the judgment creditor the debt due or accruing due from him to the judgment debtor, or so much of it as may be sufficient to satisfy the amount of the judgment and the cost of the garnishee proceedings. It is a condition that the money must be due or have accrued to the Judgment debtor for it to be liable to garnishment. For it is said that a judgment creditor cannot, by means of attachment, stand the judgment debtor because “he can only obtain what the Judgment debtor could honestly give him”.
5. The Black’s Law Dictionary, 7th Edition 1999 at page 410 defines “Debt, as liability on a claim, a specific sum of money due by agreement or otherwise, the aggregate of all existing claims against a person entity or State. A non-monetary thing that one person owes another, such as goods or services”.
6. “Debtor is defined as “One who owes an obligation to another, especially an obligation to pay money; indebtedness is defined as “The condition or state of owing money, something owed, a debt”
I have gone to this tedium to bring out vividly what garnishee proceedings entails, the right of Judgment Creditor and the corresponding duty of a Garnishee under the law. PER PETER OLABISI IGE, J.C.A.

JURISIDICTION: IMPORTANCE OF JURISDICTION

There is no doubt that a Court or tribunal must possess the necessary vires to deal with any matter brought before it otherwise no matter how well or best conducted the trial or proceedings it will tantamount to a nullity.
1. CHIEF DANIEL A. OLOBA VS. ISAAC OLUBODUN AKEREJA (1988) 3 NWLR (PT. 84) 508 520 B – E per OBASEKI JSC who said:
“The issue of jurisdiction is very fundamental as it goes to the competence of the Court or tribunal. If a Court or tribunal is not competent to entertain a matter or claim or suit, it is a waste of valuable time for the Court to embark on the hearing and determination of the suit, matter or claim. It is therefore an exhibition of wisdom to have the issue of jurisdiction or competence determined before embarking on the hearing and determination of the substantive matter. The issue of jurisdiction being a fundamental issue, it can be raised at any stage of the proceedings in the Court of first instance or in the appeal Court. “
2. SKYE BANK PLC VS VICTOR ANAEMEMIWU (2017) 6 NWLR (PART 1590) 24 AT 111 H TO 112 A – E per PETER ODILI, JSC who said:
“The situation on ground throws up the matter of jurisdiction of Court and it is trite that jurisdiction is the bedrock of any adjudication to the extent that it affects the very foundation of every cause of action before a Court of law. The reason is simple since without jurisdiction, the decision of a Court or tribunal without the requisite jurisdiction is nullity, dead on arrived and of on effect whatever. The principle applies to Courts whether of trial or appellate. The description is very aptly made in the case of Utih v. Onoyivwe (1991) 1 SC (Pt. 1) 65 at 96 -97 (1991) 1 NWLR (Pt. 166) 166 at 206 paras. A per Bello CJN thus:
“…jurisdiction is blood that gives life to the survival or an action in Court of law and without jurisdiction, the action will be like cease to have life and any attempt to resuscitate it without infusing blood into it would be an abortive exercise. See also decision of the Supreme Court of Nigeria in the old case of Madukolu v. Nkemdilim (1962) 2 SCNLR 341.” PER PETER OLABISI IGE, J.C.A.

JURISDICTION: HOW IS JURISDICTION OF THE COURT DETERMINED

However, it must be stated that when it comes to whether it is the Federal High Court pursuant to Section 251(1)(o)-(s) that has jurisdiction or another High Court including the High Court of Federal Capital Territory, the Court must consider not only the parties to the dispute but the subject matter or the cause of action in order to determine jurisdiction.
1. MRS UJU B. OSUDE VS MRS EUCHARIA AZODO & ORS (2017) 15 NWLR (PART 1588) 293 AT 322 D-H TO 323A-G per GALINJE, JSC.
2. PETER ESSI VS NIGERIA PORTS PLC (2018) 2 NWLR (PART 1604) 361 AT 385 – 386 and 390 E – H per KEKERE- EKUN, JSC who said:-
“In determining whether or not a Court had jurisdiction to entertain a cause or matter, it is the plaintiff’s claim as disclosed in his writ of summons and statement of claim that would be considered. Where the exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal High Court is in issue, the mere fact that an agency of the Federal Government is a party is not sufficient, without more to confer Jurisdiction on the Court. The Court deciding the issue will also take into consideration the nature and subject matter of claim. It has been held severally by this Court that the exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal High Court provided for in Section 230(1)(s) of the 1979 Constitution, as amended by Decree No. 107 of 1993 (now Section 251 (1)(r) of the 1999 Constitution) does not extend to dispute arising from simple contracts. See: Adelekan v. Ecu-Line NV (2006) 12 NWLR (Pt. 993) 33; Onuorah v. KR.P.C. Ltd. (2005) 6 NWLR (Pt. 921) 393 @ 405 A-D & 409 A-D; Sun Insurance Nig. Pic. v. Ume: Eng: Const. Cont. Co. Ltd. (2015) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1471) 576; (2015) LPELR-24737 (SC).
The dispute between the parties in this suit is from a simple breach of a landlord/tenant contract. It does not fall within the exclusive Jurisdiction of the Federal High Court.”
3. CHIEF RITA LORI OGBEBOR & ORS VS INEC & ORS (2018) 6 NWLR (PART 1614) 1 AT 22 G – H TO 23A per EKO, JSC who said:-
“Now, I come back to the contention of the appellants that what determines the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court is the parties, and not the nature of the claim. To be specific, the appellants contend that where the action is in relation to the matters covered by Section 251 (1) (p), (q) & (r) of the Constitution, the determinant is whether the party, either as the plaintiff or defendant, is the Federal Government or any of its agencies. To some extent this statement of law is correct, but in a limited sense. PER PETER OLABISI IGE, J.C.A.

JURISDICTION: POSITION OF THE LAW ON WHICH COURT WOULD HAVE JURISDICTION WHERE THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OR ANY OF ITS AGENCIES IS A PARTY

This Court has shifted position from the blanket statement that in any suit, where the Federal Government or any of its agencies is a party, only the Federal High Court has jurisdiction to entertain such an action. In Onuorah v. Kaduna Refinery & Petrochemical Company (2005) 6 NWLR (Pt. 921) 391 at 405 it has stated clearly that the jurisdiction conferred on the Federal High Court by the 1999 Constitution does not extend to claims founded on simple contract between the Federal or any of its agencies, and a third party. See also Adelekan v. Ecu-line NV (2006) 12 NWLR (Pt. 993) 33; (2006) 5 SC (Pt. 2) 32 where Onnoghen, JSC (as he then was) stated that the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court does not include dealing with any case of simple contract.”

4.ATTORNEY-GENERAL, LAGOS STATE VS EKO HOTELS LTD (2018) 7 NWLR (PART 1619) 518 AT 552M TO 553 A-C where my Lord KEKERE-EKUN, JSC. PER PETER OLABISI IGE, J.C.A.

COURT: POWERS OF A COURT TO MAKE CONSEQUENTIAL ORDERS

Furthermore, a Court has inherent powers to grant or make consequential orders to give effect to the Court’s decision and avoid any doubt in adjudication.
See: APC & ORS V. HON. DANLADI IDRIS KARFI & ORS (2018) 6 NWLR (PART 1616) 479 at 505 H to 506 A per Okoro J SC, who said:
“The power of a Court of law to make consequential orders is inherent and flows from its jurisdiction to try the case. All superior Courts of record possess inherent powers not necessarily derivable from any law. It is embedded in a Court to ensure and enhance a free flow of justice to end-users. A consequential order is therefore an order, which gives effect to the judgment already given by the Court. It is not granted as a fresh, unclaimed or unproven relief. See Awoniyi v. Registered Trustees 01 the A Rosicrucian ARMOC (2006) 6 SCNJ 14, (2000) 10 NWLR (Pt. 676) 522.” PER PETER OLABISI IGE, J.C.A.

Before Our Lordships:

Peter Olabisi Ige Justice of the Court of Appeal

Yargata Byenchit Nimpar Justice of the Court of Appeal

Mohammed Baba Idris Justice of the Court of Appeal

Between

CENTRAL BANK OF NIGERIA APPELANT(S)

And

1. JOD PARTNERSHIP LIMITED 2. NATIONAL DEFENCE COLLEGE RESPONDENT(S)

PETER OLABISI IGE, J.C.A. (Delivering The Leading Judgment): This is an appeal against the decision of the FCT High Court delivered on 24th January, 2019 wherein the learned trial Judge HON. JUSTICE I. U. BELLO found against the Appellant this:
“Meaning Section 64 of the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act is not applicable. Consent of the Attorney General of the Federation is not necessary in the circumstances and I so hold.
Before concluding, let me state that a garnishee only duty is to appear and show cause why Order Nisi should not be engaged in an advocacy in the nature being witnessed in this case. Again, the Judgment Debtor is ordinarily not a party to garnishee proceedings and audience seldom granted thereto. But having considered the process filed by the Judgment Debtor along with the responses of the Judgment Creditor, I am of the view that the Order Nisi should be made absolute and it is so made as prayed however the Judgment Sum is to be deposited with the Registrar of this Court pending the outcome of the Appeal at the Court of Appeal.”

The Appellant was dissatisfied and has by his Notice and Grounds of Appeal of Appeal dated and filed on 8th February, 2019 appeal to this Court on three grounds as follows:
“PART OF THE DECISION OF THE LOWER COURT COMPLAINED ABOUT
The whole Decision
3. GROUNDS OF APPEAL
GROUND ONE
The Judgment of the Court is a nullity same having been made without jurisdiction.
PARTICULARS OF ERROR
a. The learned trial Judge misdirected himself when he granted an Order Absolute against the appellant on issues relating to matter pertaining to Banking, Banks and other financial institution, including any action between one Bank and another, and action by or against the Central Bank of Nigeria from Banking.
b. The 2nd respondent (party) before the Court are Federal Government agency whose funds are under the custody and control of the appellant which excluding the jurisdiction of the Court on matter before the Court.
GROUND TWO
The learned trial Judge erred in law when he granted an order Nisi on the 10th Jan, 2017 and made it absolute on the 24th January, 2019 against the appellant who control and hold in custody the judgment sum without the consent of the Attorney General of the Federation first obtained.

PARTICULARS OF ERROR
a. The fund attached by the garnishee order absolute is in the custody and control of a public officer.
b. By Section 84 of the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act, the consent of the Attorney General is a mandatory requirement for the funds in the custody of public officer to be attached.
c. The consent of the Attorney General was not sought and obtained in the instant case.
d. The garnishee order absolute made without the Attorney General’s consent is a nullity, same having been made without Jurisdiction.
GROUND THREE
The Judgment of the Court bellow delivered after the expiration of 90 bays is a nullity same having full of contradictions and miscarriage of Justice.
PARTICULARS OF ERROR
a. The hearing was heard and judgment was also delivered inside the chambers of the Judge.
b. The Judge did not consider the processes filed by the appellant alongside other processes filed by the respondents before reaching a decision.
GROUND FOUR
The learned trial Chief Judge erred in law when he disregards decision of the superior Court.<br< p=”” style=”box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;”>

</br<>

PARTICULARS OF ERROR
a. The lower Court went on its own to give judgment contrary to various and recent judgment of the superior Court on same subject matter.
b. The Court constituted its self to be a father xmas when he gave an order not prayed for.
RELIEF SOUGHT FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL
1. To allow the Appeal and set aside the judgment of the lower Court delivered 24th January, 2019 against the Appellant.”

The Appellant filed her Appellant’s Brief of Argument dated 28th March, 2019 on the same date. The Respondents did not file Briefs of Argument. The Appellant brought an application dated 14th February, 2020 and filed on 17th February, 2020 seeking, for the Order of this Court to hear and determine the appeal on Appellant’s Brief alone since the Respondents time to file their respective Brief of Argument has lapsed. The application was granted on 26th June, 2020 hence this appeal was heard on 9th November, 2020 on Appellant’s Brief alone.

The law is trite that the fact that a Respondent did not file Brief of Argument would not translate to automatic win or success to the Appellant. The merit or otherwise of the Appeal

must the judicially and judiciously examined, see: (1) UNITY BANK PLC V. BOUARI (2008) NWLR (PART 1086) 372 at 403 F – G per OGBUAGU, JSC who said:
“In a line of decided authorities, it has been held that the failure of respondent, to file a reply brief, is immaterial. This is because an appellant will succeed on the strength of his case. But respondent will be deemed to have admitted the truth of everything stated in the appellant’s brief in so far as such is borne out by the records. In other words, it is not automatic. An appellant, must succeed or fail on his own brief. See the cases of John Holt Ventures Ltd. v. Oputa (1996) 9 NWLR (Pt. 470) 101 CA.; Onyejekwe v. The Nigeria Police Council (1996) 7 NWLR (Pt. 463) 704 C.A.; Waziri v. Waziri (1998) 1 NWLR (Pt. 533) 322 CA. and UB.A. Plc v. Ajileye (1999) 13 NWLR (Pt. 633) 116 C. A. Just to mention but a few.”
2. OGBU V. STATE 2007 SC (PART 1028) page.
3. SKYE BANK ANOR V. AKINPELU 2010 (PART 1198) page 179.

The Learned Counsel to the Appellant Agbaminoja O. George Esq. distilled four issue as follows:
“10a. WHETHER THE COURT BELOW BEING AN FCT HIGH COURT (STATE HIGH COURT) HAS THE

JURISDICTION TO PRESIDE OVER MATTERS PERTAINING TO BANK, BANKS AND OTHER FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS INCLUDING ANY ACTION BETWEEN ONE BANK(S) AND ACTION BY OR AGAINST THE APPELLANT (THE CENTRAL BANK OF NIGERIA)
10b. WHETHER THE COURT BELOW IS RIGHT WHEN IT GRANTS AN ORDER NISI AND MADE IT ABSOLUTE ON THE 24TH JANUARY, 2019 AGAINST THE APPELLANT WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE FEDERATION FIRTST OBTAINED.
10c. WHETHER THE COURT BELOW HAS NOT CONTRAVENED THE PROVISIONS OF THE LAW WHEN THE COURT HEARD AND DELIVERED A JUDGMENT INSIDE THE JUDGE CHAMBERS AND EXCEEDING THE 90 DAYS REQUIRED BY LAW HAVING RESULTED TO MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE.
10d. WHETHER THE COURT BELOW HAVE THE POWER TO OVERRULE THE DECISION OF A SUPERIORS (COURT OF APPEAL) COURT ON SAME SUBJECT MATTER WHICH HAD EARLIER BE RULED UPON IN VARIOUS MATTER IN RECHEACING ITS JUDGMENT IN THIS MATTER.”

I will take the four issues together.
The 1st issue complained that the High Court of Federal Capital Territory has no jurisdiction to preside over matters pertaining to Bank, Banks and other financial institutions including any action between one Bank and action by

or against the Appellant as provided in Section 251 (1) D of the 1999 Constitution. Learned Counsel to the Appellant traced the history of the case and submitted that the relationship between the Appellant and 2nd Respondent is statutory and different from the regular relationship existing in the normal course of banking business which he said the Court below erroneously held to be contractual. He relied on the cases of Guarantee Trust Bank PLC vs. EKEMEZIE (2016) 2 NWLR (Pt. 1497) 579 and JUKOK INTERNATIONAL LTD v. DIAMOND BANK PLC (2016) 6 NWLR (PT 1507) 5.

He opined that Order viii Rule 2 of Judgment (Enforcement) Rules provides for Court in which garnishee could be commenced against Appellant. He contended that it is only the Federal High Court that has jurisdiction to entertain the garnishee proceedings and not FCT High Court. He urged the Court to hold that the lower Court lacked jurisdiction to deal with the matter.

On issue 2 Learned Counsel to the Appellant submitted that the Court below has no right to grant an Order NISI AND Order absolute on 24th January, 2019 against the Appellant without the consent of the Attorney-General of the

Federation first obtained. He stated that the Appellant is a Public Officer and as such the consent of the Attorney-General of the Federation is required under Section 84 of the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act before a garnishee order or proceeding could be made or commenced, against the Appellant relying on the cases of:
(1) HASSAN VS. ALIYU (2010) 17 NWLR (PART 1223) 621.
(2) CBN V. HYDRO AIR PTY LTD (2014) 16 NWLR (PART 1434) 482.
(3) CBN V. OKEFE (2015) LPELR 24825 CA
(4) NIC V. OYEFESOBI (2013) LPELR – 20660
He also relied on SECTION 84 of the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act.

He accused the lower Court of failure to follow precedent and to decline jurisdiction to entertain the action because consent of Attorney General is a condition precedent.

Issue 3 accused the learned trial Judge of delivering judgment inside his chambers and exceeding the 90 days required by lane and that it led to miscarriage of justice and contrary to Section 294(1) of the 1999 Constitution.

He stated that the judgment was delivered on 24/1/2019 after conclusion on evidence and final written address by both the Appellant and 1st

Respondent on 13th February, 2018 “a year later is unreasonable and contradict the provision of Section 294(1) of the Constitution.” He drew attention to letter for transfer of Appellant case from the trial Judge to another Judge Written on 15/11/18 pages 65 – 67 of the record. He relied on the case of NDIC vs. FMB (1997) 2 NWLR (PART 490) 743.

That the inordinate delay had caused the lower Court to lose touch with the fact of the case. That the lower Court ought to have dealt with the case timeously knowing fully well that the 2nd Respondent has no role to play by judgment debtor.

That the Appellant has suffered miscarriage of justice by the inordinate delay. That the matter was heard and delivered in chambers and that the judgment emanating therefore cannot be said to be legal judgment replying on the case ofSALAN V. ADZA (1997) 11 NWLR (PART 527) 15.

Issue four is about the failure of lower Court to follow precedent and decision of superior Court. The first port of complaint is that the lower Court granted order not asked for by directing the judgment sum to be paid into Court pending outcome of appeal. He relied on the case of FJSC v. THOMAS (2013) 17 NWLR (PART 1384) 503 at 548 among other cases.

That even if he has jurisdiction to make the order for payment of judgment sum into Court, it was wrong in this case because the lower Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the main reliefs hence it could not make such ancillary order. That the Court is not a father Christmas and only bound by the claim or prayers before it. He relied on the cases of:
(1) KAKIH V. PDP (2014) 7 SCNJ 65 at 105 (SIC)
(2) AKINRINMISI V. MAESK NIG LTD (2013) 10 NWLR (PART 1361) 73 at 85 E.
He urged the Court to allow the appeal.

available in execution. The third party holds the debt or property of the judgment debtor. By this process, the Court orders the third party to pay direct to the judgment creditor or to the Court the debt due or accruing from him to judgment debtor, as much of it as may be sufficient to satisfy the amount of the judgment debt and the cost of the garnishee proceedings. See Words of Phrases Legally Defined 3rd Ed. Vol. 2, pages 313-314 cited by Akintan, JS, in his concurring Judgment in Union Bank of Nigeria Plc v. Boney Marcus Industries Ltd. (2005) 13 NWLR (Pt. 943) 654 at page 666. Lord Denning, Mr. in Choice Investment Ltd. v. Jerotninlmon (1981) QB 149 at 154— 155, gives a simple illustration of garnishee proceeding thus: –
“A creditor is owed 100pounds by a debtor. The debtor does not pay. The creditor then gets Judgment against him for the £100. Still the debtor does not pay. The creditor then discovers that the debtor is a customer of a bank and that he has 150pounds at his bank. The creditor can get a “garnishee” order against the bank by which the bank is required to pay into the Court or direct to the Judgment creditor) out of the

customer’s 150pounds – the 100pounds which he owes to the creditor”
The Master of the Rolls went on, in the case, to state further:
“There are two steps in the process. The first is a garnishee order nisi. Nisi is Norman-French. means “unless”. It is an order upon the bank to pay 100pounds to the judgment creditor or into Court within a stated time, unless there is some sufficient reason why the bank should not do so. Such reason may exist if the bank disputes its indebtedness to the customer for some or other. Or if payment to this creditor might be unfair to prefer him to other creditors: See Pritchard v. Westminister 1 (1969) ALL ER 999 and Rainbow v. Mdortgate Properties Ltd. (1975) 2 ALL ER 821. If no sufficient reason appears, the garnishee order is made absolute to pay to the Judgment creditor or into the Court: whichever is more appropriate. On making the payment, the bank gets a good discharge from its indebtedness to its own customer Just as if he himself directed the bank to pay it”. I did this detour for a purpose. That is, to show that garnishee proceedings is not a process employed by the garnishee to fight a proxy war

against the judgment creditor on behalf of the judgment debtor. Accordingly, it does not avail the garnishee to contest the merits of the judgment culminating in the judgment debt. It does not; therefore, lie in the power or right of the garnishee to contumaciously attack the main judgment which the Judgment creditor and the Judgment debtor have accepted or are deemed to have accepted, and/or which they have submitted themselves to.”
2.BARBEDOS VENTURES LTD V FIRST BANK OF NIGERIA PLC (2018) 4 NWLR (PART 1609) 241 AT 270H 272 A – C per AUGIE, JSC who said:-
“However before resolving the main issue, there is an underlying and threshold procedural and jurisdictional (party) issue to be resolved whether the respondent is a proper garnishee in these circumstances?
To start with, garnishee proceedings are governed by the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act, and Section 83(1) thereof provides as follows-
“The Court may, upon the ex parte application of any person who is entitled to the benefit of a judgment for the recovery or payment of money, either before or after any oral examination of the debtor liable under such judgment and upon

affidavit by the applicant or his legal practitioner that judgment has been recovered and that is, is still unsatisfied and to what amount, and that any other person is indebted to such debtor and is within the State, order that debts owing from such third person, hereinafter called the garnishee to such debtor shall be attached to satisfy the judgment or order, together with the costs of the garnishee proceedings and by the same or any subsequent order it may be ordered that the garnishee shall appear before the Court to show cause why he should not pay to the person who has obtained such judgment or order the debt due from him to such debtor or so much thereof as may be sufficient to satisfy the judgment or order together with costs aforesaid:-
A garnishee is, therefore, a debtor to the judgment debtor see Skye Bank v. Colombara & Anor (2014) 2 BFLR 177 (2015) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1453) 538, wherein it was held:
“A garnishee is essentially a third party, who being indebted to the judgment debtor or having custody of his money and who at the instance of the judgment creditor is being called upon to pay the Judgment debt from his indebtedness to the judgment debtor from the creditor of the judgment debtor in the account thereof with the third party.”

any subsequent order, makes an order that the garnishee appears before the Court to show cause why the garnishee should not pay to the judgment creditor the debt due from the garnishee to the judgment debtor or so much it as may be sufficient to satisfy the judgment.”
Uwaifo JCA (as he then was) well captured the procedure above stated when interpreting Section 81 of the Sheriffs and Civil Processes Law which is an impart materia to the current Section 83 of the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act in the cases of: United Bank for Africa Limited v. Societe Generate Bank Limited & 3 Ors (1996) 10 NWLR (Pt. 478) page 381 at 390, paras A B thus:-
“By the process of garnishee, the Court has power under Section 81 of the Sheriffs and Civil Process Law to order a third person to pay direct to the judgment creditor the debt due or accruing due from him to the judgment debtor, or so much of it as may be sufficient to satisfy the amount of the judgment and the cost of the garnishee proceedings. It is a condition that the money must be due or have accrued to the Judgment debtor for it to be liable to garnishment. For it is said that a judgment creditor

cannot, by means of attachment, stand the judgment debtor because “he can only obtain what the Judgment debtor could honestly give him”.
5. The Black’s Law Dictionary, 7th Edition 1999 at page 410 defines “Debt, as liability on a claim, a specific sum of money due by agreement or otherwise, the aggregate of all existing claims against a person entity or State. A non-monetary thing that one person owes another, such as goods or services”.
6. “Debtor is defined as “One who owes an obligation to another, especially an obligation to pay money; indebtedness is defined as “The condition or state of owing money, something owed, a debt”
I have gone to this tedium to bring out vividly what garnishee proceedings entails, the right of Judgment Creditor and the corresponding duty of a Garnishee under the law. There is no doubt that, the 1st Respondent followed the due process in initiating the garnishee proceedings. What was expected of the Appellant was simply to show cause via affidavit evidence why the Order Nisi should not be made absolute.

The Appellant has contended the lower Court had no jurisdiction. The Appellant is wrong. There is no doubt that a Court or tribunal must possess the necessary vires to deal with any matter brought before it otherwise no matter how well or best conducted the trial or proceedings it will tantamount to a nullity.
1. CHIEF DANIEL A. OLOBA VS. ISAAC OLUBODUN AKEREJA (1988) 3 NWLR (PT. 84) 508 520 B – E per OBASEKI JSC who said:
“The issue of jurisdiction is very fundamental as it goes to the competence of the Court or tribunal. If a Court or tribunal is not competent to entertain a matter or claim or suit, it is a waste of valuable time for the Court to embark on the hearing and determination of the suit, matter or claim. It is therefore an exhibition of wisdom to have the issue of jurisdiction or competence determined before embarking on the hearing and determination of the substantive matter. The issue of jurisdiction being a fundamental issue, it can be raised at any stage of the proceedings in the Court of first instance or in the appeal Court. ”
2. SKYE BANK PLC VS VICTOR ANAEMEMIWU (2017) 6 NWLR (PART 1590) 24 AT 111 H TO 112 A – E per PETER ODILI, JSC who said:
“The situation on ground throws up the matter of jurisdiction of Court

and it is trite that jurisdiction is the bedrock of any adjudication to the extent that it affects the very foundation of every cause of action before a Court of law. The reason is simple since without jurisdiction, the decision of a Court or tribunal without the requisite jurisdiction is nullity, dead on arrived and of on effect whatever. The principle applies to Courts whether of trial or appellate. The description is very aptly made in the case of Utih v. Onoyivwe (1991) 1 SC (Pt. 1) 65 at 96 -97 (1991) 1 NWLR (Pt. 166) 166 at 206 paras. A per Bello CJN thus:
“…jurisdiction is blood that gives life to the survival or an action in Court of law and without jurisdiction, the action will be like cease to have life and any attempt to resuscitate it without infusing blood into it would be an abortive exercise. See also decision of the Supreme Court of Nigeria in the old case of Madukolu v. Nkemdilim (1962) 2 SCNLR 341.”

Territory, the Court must consider not only the parties to the dispute but the subject matter or the cause of action in order to determine jurisdiction.
1. MRS UJU B. OSUDE VS MRS EUCHARIA AZODO & ORS (2017) 15 NWLR (PART 1588) 293 AT 322 D-H TO 323A-G per GALINJE, JSC.
2. PETER ESSI VS NIGERIA PORTS PLC (2018) 2 NWLR (PART 1604) 361 AT 385 – 386 and 390 E – H per KEKERE- EKUN, JSC who said:-
“In determining whether or not a Court had jurisdiction to entertain a cause or matter, it is the plaintiff’s claim as disclosed in his writ of summons and statement of claim that would be considered. Where the exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal High Court is in issue, the mere fact that an agency of the Federal Government is a party is not sufficient, without more to confer Jurisdiction on the Court. The Court deciding the issue will also take into consideration the nature and subject matter of claim. It has been held severally by this Court that the exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal High Court provided for in Section 230(1)(s) of the 1979 Constitution, as amended by Decree No. 107 of 1993 (now Section 251 (1)(r) of the 1999 Constitution)

does not extend to dispute arising from simple contracts. See: Adelekan v. Ecu-Line NV (2006) 12 NWLR (Pt. 993) 33; Onuorah v. KR.P.C. Ltd. (2005) 6 NWLR (Pt. 921) 393 @ 405 A-D & 409 A-D; Sun Insurance Nig. Pic. v. Ume: Eng: Const. Cont. Co. Ltd. (2015) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1471) 576; (2015) LPELR-24737 (SC).
The dispute between the parties in this suit is from a simple breach of a landlord/tenant contract. It does not fall within the exclusive Jurisdiction of the Federal High Court.”
3. CHIEF RITA LORI OGBEBOR & ORS VS INEC & ORS (2018) 6 NWLR (PART 1614) 1 AT 22 G – H TO 23A per EKO, JSC who said:-
“Now, I come back to the contention of the appellants that what determines the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court is the parties, and not the nature of the claim. To be specific, the appellants contend that where the action is in relation to the matters covered by Section 251 (1) (p), (q) & (r) of the Constitution, the determinant is whether the party, either as the plaintiff or defendant, is the Federal Government or any of its agencies. To some extent this statement of law is correct, but in a limited sense. In the instant case,

the appellants as the plaintiffs, have not been able to convince the judex that their suit has anything to do with the administration, management or control of the Federal Government or any of its agencies of the validity of any executive/administrative action or decision of the Federal Government or any of its agencies to warrant the Federal High Court interpretation of the provisions of the Constitution in that regard.
This Court has shifted position from the blanket statement that in any suit, where the Federal Government or any of its agencies is a party, only the Federal High Court has jurisdiction to entertain such an action. In Onuorah v. Kaduna Refinery & Petrochemical Company (2005) 6 NWLR (Pt. 921) 391 at 405 it has stated clearly that the jurisdiction conferred on the Federal High Court by the 1999 Constitution does not extend to claims founded on simple contract between the Federal or any of its agencies, and a third party. See also Adelekan v. Ecu-line NV (2006) 12 NWLR (Pt. 993) 33; (2006) 5 SC (Pt. 2) 32 where Onnoghen, JSC (as he then was) stated that the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court does not include dealing with any case of simple contract.”

4.ATTORNEY-GENERAL, LAGOS STATE VS EKO HOTELS LTD (2018) 7 NWLR (PART 1619) 518 AT 552M TO 553 A-C where my Lord KEKERE-EKUN, JSC.

The subject matter of the action leading to this appeal is a case of simple contract relating to debt owed to the 1st Respondent to the 2nd Respondent. In effect the lower Court is and was imbued with jurisdiction to deal with the subject matter of the action notwithstanding that Appellant was later brought in as a Garnishee. In any event one wonders the need for the Appellant to now be weeping more than the bereaved. The National Defence college filed processes in the case and even fought to defend the action and there is absolutely no evidence before this Court to show that the 2nd Respondent contested the judgment of lower Court in favour of the 1st Respondent against the 2nd Respondent. There is even no basis for the Central Bank to be fighting tooth and nail to have the Order NISI and order absolute made by the lower Court set aside when National Defence College did not bother itself appealing against the judgment given on the undefended list by lower Court.

The Appellant did not by way of Affidavit showing cause, explain to the lower Court why the money should not be paid to the 1st Respondent but decided to raise objection to the jurisdiction of the lower Court. The Appellant cannot and is not allowed under the law to fight the battle of the Judgment Debtor since the 2nd Respondent who was adjudged the judgment debtor is deemed to be a party to the Garnishee proceedings under Section 83 of the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act. See CENTRAL BANK OF NIGERIA VS. INTERSTELLA COMMUNICATIONS & ORS (2018) 7 NWLR (PART 1618) 294 at 346 A – H to 347 A – B per OGUNBIYI, JSC, who said:-
“It could not have been the intention of the legislature that Section 84(1) of the SCPA should be used as an umbrella for the 3rd and 4th respondents to evade a debt owed, by simply putting its funds in the hands of the appellant: it is not also the intention that a judgment creditor should first obtain the consent of the debtor before proceeding against the debtor to recover his money.
The submission by the learned counsel for the appellant would certainly be counter-productive. It will also defeat the doctrine of the Rule of Law, which, as rightly argued by

1st & and respondents, counsel, is the hallmark or our democracy. This Court in NPA v. CGFC SPA (1974) NLR (Pt. 11) 463 held that a section of a statute should not be given an undue emphasis, that it did not posses, and that a statute cannot be applied in a situation where its effect is clearly contrary to the intendment of the legislature passing that law.
Again and contrary to the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant, the consent of the AGF had all along been obtained. Consequently, the garnishee proceedings against the appellant was rightly commenced and I so hold. The other leg of the argument is where the appellant’s counsel holds out the CBN as a public officer and retied on the case of Ibrahim v. J CSC (supra) in particular.
In the case under consideration, 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 2rd 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. A. G. 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
“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 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.”
At pages 350 E-G His Lordship also said:
“I must say that the garnishee has taken so much interest in this case and appear to have forgotten its role as a banker to the Federal Government. The role of a garnishee in any garnishee proceeding is delimited. As rightly argued by the counsel for the 1st and 2nd respondents, it is

not envisaged that after a judgment creditor has gone through the rigours to establish his rights through the legal system, that the garnishee, who is asked to surrender the judgment debtor’s money in its possession should engage the judgment creditor in another bout of legal battle. See Order VIII Part II of the Judgments (Enforcement) Rules. Basically, the restrictive role and legal duty of a garnishee in a judgment enforcement proceeding is to conscientiously and truthfully appear before the Court in order to disclose the judgment debtor’s state of Account in its custody.”
The Appellant’s contention under issue 2 is to the effect that consent of Attorney – General was not obtained before the order NISI and ABSOLUTE were respectively made is quite unfounded and based on wrong premises. It is not the business of Appellant to challenge jurisdiction of Court or that consent was not obtained on behalf of a docile Defendant and judgment debtor who appears satisfied with the judgment of lower Court and the Garnishee proceedings.
The lower Court was on a solid ground in making the Order NISI ABSOLUTE since the Appellant did not file any Affidavit to show

cause why the Order Absolute should not be made. See again CBN VS INTERSTELLA COMMUNICATIONS LTD & ORS SUPRA AT PAGES 348F-H TO 349 A-B per OGUNBIYI, JSC who said again:-
“It is intriguing to say that the appellant did not file any process in Court in response to the order nisi until the 1st day of December, 2011, which was a month later. The process filed eventually was a preliminary objection challenging the competence of the garnishee proceeding, pages 60 – 72 of the record are in reference. The order nisi was also made absolute only on the 13th June, 2012, well over 6 months after the order nisi was mode on 16th November, 2011. For all intents and purposes, can it be said rightly as claimed by the appellant’s counsel that his client was not given ample time to show cause why the order nisi should not be made absolute? The answer to the question certainty must be in the negative. Relevant to the case at hand is the decision of this Court in Omnia (Nig.) Ltd v. Dyktrade Ltd. (2007) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1058) 576.
In that case, the defendant filed a preliminary objection to the substantive suit but failed to file his defence, he was held to have

conceded all the facts in the statement of claim. At page 626 para of the report, Chukwuma-Eneh, JSC had this to say:-
“The more fundamental objection to raising this issue is that the defendant once it has decided to challenge the action by way of a preliminary objection before filing its defence is taken as having conceded all questions of facts as contained in the statement of claim, as correct.
By analogy and in applying the principle enunciated in the foregoing decision to the appeal herein, the appellant having had ample opportunity to show cause within 30 days, deliberately decided not to join issues on the substantive application; rather it filed a preliminary objection. The deductive outcome is that the appellant had conceded all the facts in the application. Consequently, with the preliminary objection having failed therefore, the order nisi was ripe to be made absolute and I so hold.”
Issues 1 and 2 are hereby resolved against the Appellant.

On issue 3, as to whether the lower Court ran foul of Section 294(1) of the Constitution before the hearing and determination of the Appellant’s application on 24th January, 2019.<br< p=”” style=”box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;”>

</br<>

There is nothing on the record of appeal showing the date the Appellant’s application was argued or taken whether in open Court or in the Chambers of the learned trial Judge to enable this Court calculate the ninety (90) days stipulated in the said Section 294(1) of the Constitution.

It was the same Learned Counsel, who applied for transfer of the case for hearing before another Judge on 15th November, 2018
The letter reads:
“O. G. AGBAMINOJA & CO
Legal Practitioners, Property, Corporate & Research Consultants
(Sede Chambers)
The Chief Judge
Court 1
FCT
Abuja.
Dear Sir,
APPLICATION FOR TRANSFER OF CASE NO. FCT/HC/CV/311/16 MOTION NO. 11/1/2832/17. JOD PARTNERSHIP LIMITED VS NATIONAL DEFENCE COLLEGE & 7 ORS.
With humility we write on the above subject matter.
We are solicitors to Central Bank of Nigeria Applicant and 7th Garnishee in the above named matter. Sometimes in February 2017, the Court ordered the 7th Garnishee to show cause why an order nisi should not be made absolute against the 7th Garnishee.
Thereafter, we filed a motion before this Court to set

aside the order nisi on the grounds as reflected on the motion dated 2nd /2/2017. However, because of the various National engagements, Court could not sit on till approximately one year before the Court could hear the motion which is expected to progress to Judgment.
Since then, the matter has suffered series of adjournments causing us large financial loss resulting to movement in and out the Court.
My Lord, we sincerely appreciate your contributions to make Nigeria a better society due to your series of National assignment we also plead that your Lordship should consider the plight of litigants in accessing justice within a reasonable period of time as this application is in no way a confrontation to this Court.
In the light of this, we humbly urge your Lordship to transfer this matter to another Judge for speedy dispensation.
May my lord be blessed
SIGNED
Olatunji G. Agbaminoja”

From the above it cannot be said that the Appellant motion had been heard as at the time as no date was stated therein suggesting failure to deliver Ruling or judgment within time.

The submissions under issue 4 was predicated on failure to heed the decisions of higher Courts not to grant more orders that what the party is seeking from Court. I agree with the principles of the law as stated but in this case, the lower Court anticipated that the Appellant may appeal to this Court in which case it should deposit the Judgment sum with the Registrar of lower Court.

The order made was/is a valid order and it even saves the Appellant the need to make application for stay of execution before the lower Court. The order made is not more than a consequential order to prevent the Appellant from further causing delay in complying the ORDER NISI which was made absolute on 24th January, 2019.
Furthermore, a Court has inherent powers to grant or make consequential orders to give effect to the Court’s decision and avoid any doubt in adjudication.
See: APC & ORS V. HON. DANLADI IDRIS KARFI & ORS (2018) 6 NWLR (PART 1616) 479 at 505 H to 506 A per Okoro J SC, who said:
“The power of a Court of law to make consequential orders is inherent and flows from its jurisdiction to try the case. All superior Courts of record possess inherent powers not necessarily derivable from any

law. It is embedded in a Court to ensure and enhance a free flow of justice to end-users. A consequential order is therefore an order, which gives effect to the judgment already given by the Court. It is not granted as a fresh, unclaimed or unproven relief. See Awoniyi v. Registered Trustees 01 the A Rosicrucian ARMOC (2006) 6 SCNJ 14, (2000) 10 NWLR (Pt. 676) 522.”

Issues 3 and 4 are resolved against the Appellant. The Appellant appeal has no merit and it is HEREBY DISMISSED.
The ORDER NISI made by the lower Court on 10th January, 2017 is hereby affirmed. The Garnishee Order absolute made on 24th January, 2019 and the Ruling of the lower Court are hereby affirmed.
No order as to costs.

YARGATA BYENCHIT NIMPAR, J.C.A: I had the privilege of reading in advance the Judgment just delivered by my learned brother, PETER OLABISI IGE, JCA and I am in agreement with his reasoning and conclusion arrived at therein.

MOHAMMED BABA IDRIS, J.C.A.: I read the draft judgment just delivered by my learned brother; PETER OLABISI IGE JCA. I agree with the reasoning, conclusion and orders therein.

Appearances:

OLATUYI GEORGE AGBALINOJA For Appellant(s)

…For Respondent(s)