CBN v. LIDAN ENGINEERING LTD & ORS (2021)

CBN v. LIDAN ENGINEERING LTD & ORS

(2021)LCN/14967(CA)

In The Court Of Appeal

(ABUJA JUDICIAL DIVISION)

On Thursday, January 07, 2021

CA/A/277/2019

RATIO

INTERPRETATION: CONSTRUCTION OF SECTION 84 OF THE SHERIFFS AND CIVIL PROCESSES ACT

In resolving this issue, it is pertinent to reproduce the provisions of Section 84 of the Sheriffs and Civil Processes Act as follows;
“84. (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 custodialegis, 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 custodialegis, 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”
The above provision simply means that where the money liable to be attached by Garnishee Proceedings is in the custody of a Public Officer in his official capacity, that Order Nisi shall not be made without the consent of the appropriate officer, which means the Attorney General of the Federation or the State as the case may be. PER MONICA BOLNA’AN DONGBAN-MENSEM, J.C.A.
PUBLIC OFFICERS: WHETHER THE CBN FALLS UNDER THE CATEGORY OF PUBLIC OFFICERS

The CBN therefore does not fall under the category of Public Officers in the context of Section 84 of the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act.

In the case of CBN V. INTERSTELLAR COMMUNICATIONS LTD & ORS (2017) LPELR – 43940 (SC), the Apex Court held thus;
“It is apparent herein, on the facts of this case that the CBN acts as a Banker to the Federal Government 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… “Per Ogunbiyi, J.S.C. (Emphasis Supplied). PER MONICA BOLNA’AN DONGBAN-MENSEM, J.C.A.
JUDGMENT CREDIT: PRINCIPLE UNDERLYING SCURING THE CONSENT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AS PRESCRIBED IN SECTION 84 SHERIFFS AND CIVIL PROCESSES ACT

It is important at this point to re-emphasize that the principle underlying securing the consent of the Hon. Attorney-General as prescribed in Section 84 Sheriffs and Civil Processes Act is to avoid embarrassment on the Government of not having the prior knowledge that funds earmarked for some purposes have been diverted in satisfaction of a Judgment debt, which the Government may not know anything about. Judgment creditors should not be deprived of their monies in the name of requiring consent from the Hon. Attorney-General as other Federal Government Agencies will exploit this avenue to owe private bodies, which would be harsh and unfair. PER MONICA BOLNA’AN DONGBAN-MENSEM, J.C.A.
LEGISLATION: CARDINAL PRINCIPLE IN THE INTERPRETATIOM OF LAWS AND STATUTES

In the interpretation of Laws and Statutes, it is important to put into consideration, the intendment of the makers of the legislation.
“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. ” Per Ogunbiyi J.S.C. in the case of CBN V. INTERSTELLAR COMMUNICATIONS LTD & ORS (Supra), See also the case of PURIFICATION TECH (NIG.) LTD V. A.G. LAGOS STATE (2004) 9 NWLR (PT 8790) 665. PER MONICA BOLNA’AN DONGBAN-MENSEM, J.C.A.
JURISDICTION: FUNDAMENTAL NATURE OF THE ISSUE OF JURISDICTION

The issue of jurisdiction is so fundamental to the determination of a matter to the extent that any proceedings conducted without jurisdiction is a nullity. This is why the issue of jurisdiction can be raised at any time, even for the first time on appeal. I call in aid, the decision of the Apex Court in the case of NDUUL V. WAYO & ORS (2018) LPELR – 45151 (SC) thus;

“Jurisdiction is so fundamental that any proceeding conducted without it is a nullity and liable to be set aside, no matter how well conducted See: Madukolu Vs, Nkemdilim (1962) 2 SCLR 341; (1962) 2 ALL NLR 587 @ 594; Skenconsult (Nig). Ltd. vs Ukey (1981) 1 S.C. 6 @ 52; Inakoju vs. Adeleke (2007) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1025) 427 @ 588 F. It is because of the futility of proceedings conducted without jurisdiction that the issue may be raised at any stage of the proceedings, in any manner and even for the first time on appeal before the apex Court…
Ordinarily, an appeal can only be determined based on the grounds of appeal contained in the notice of appeal which must be a complaint arising from the judgment appealed against. However, an appellate Court, upon proper application, has the jurisdiction to grant leave to a party to raise a fresh issue before it for the first time that was not raised in the Court or Courts below where the fresh issue involves substantial points of law, substantive or procedural. Such discretion will be exercised in favour of the applicant where all the facts required to determine the issue are before the Court and no further evidence would be required to reach a decision on the matter. It will also be exercised where the Court is satisfied that it would meet the justice of the case. “Per Kekere-Ekun, JSC. (Emphasis Supplied). PER MONICA BOLNA’AN DONGBAN-MENSEM, J.C.A.

Before Our Lordships:

Monica Bolna’an Dongban-Mensem Justice of the Court of Appeal

Stephen Jonah Adah Justice of the Court of Appeal

Yargata Byenchit Nimpar Justice of the Court of Appeal

Between

CENTRAL BANK OF NIGERIA APPELANT(S)

And

LIDAN ENGINEERING LTD 2. JOHNS EXPRESS AGENCIES LTD 3. HOPEVILLE & CREEN NIGERIA LTD 4. MR CHUKS AGOHA 5. CUSTOMS, IMMIGRATION AND PRISONS SERVICE BOARD 6. THE COMPTROLLER GENERAL OF CUSTOMS 7. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE FEDERATION RESPONDENT(S)

MONICA BOLNA’AN DONGBAN-MENSEM, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): This is an appeal challenging the Ruling of the Federal High Court, Abuja Coram E.I. Ekwo (J.), delivered on the 18th of February, 2019 wherein trial Court ruled in favour of the 1st-4th Respondents who were the Judgment Creditors (Garnishors) at the trial, for the enforcement of the Judgment of the trial Court entered on the 24th of April, 2012 in Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/157/08 against the Garnishee.

The 1st-4th Respondents commenced the suit as Judgment Creditors/Garnishors by a Motion Ex-Parte on the 22nd of March, 2018. The Appellant (Garnishee) being dissatisfied with the Ruling of the trial Court filed a Notice of Appeal on the 20th of February, 2019.

The brief facts leading to this appeal as contained in the Appellant’s Brief of Argument on pages 4-5 are that;
The 1st-4th Respondents herein (as Judgment Creditors) obtained Judgment in Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/157/08 against the 5th, 6th and 7th Respondents (as Judgment Debtors) at the Federal High Court, Abuja Judicial Division before His lordship, Hon. Justice GK. Olotu on the 24th of

April, 2012 in the sum of N320,000,000.00 (Three Hundred and Twenty Million Naira Only). The 1st-4th Respondents thereafter commenced Garnishee Proceedings against the Appellant as the Garnishee at the Federal High Court, Abuja Judicial Division by a motion Ex-Parte dated 16th May, 2016 in Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/333/2016 before His lordship, Hon. Justice N.O. Dimgba Upon hearing the motion Ex-Parte of the 1st-4th Respondents, the Court below on the 24th March, 2016 made a Garnishee Order Nisi wherein it ordered the Appellant to appear before it to show cause why the Order Nisi should not be made Absolute for payment to the Judgment Creditors from the Judgment Debtors’ purported funds in its custody in satisfaction of the Judgment sum.
That upon being served with the said Garnishee Order Nisi, the 5th, 6th and 7th Respondents filed a Notice of Preliminary Objection challenging the Jurisdiction of the Court below on the ground that the Judgment Creditors failed to comply with the provisions of Section 84 of the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act, LFN, 2004 by seeking and obtaining the requisite consent of the Attorney General before initiating the Garnishee

Proceedings. Upon hearing the argument of respective parties and examination of the relevant processes before it, the Court below per Dimgba J. in a well-considered Judgment delivered on the 7th March, 2017, struck out the Garnishee Proceedings for want of Jurisdiction for failure of the Judgment Creditors to fulfil the vital condition of seeking and obtaining the requisite consent of the Attorney General before initiating and commencing the Garnishee Proceedings.
The 1st- 4th Respondents however recommenced the instant Garnishee Proceedings at the Court below by a Motion Ex-Parte, dated 23rd March, 2018 in suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/301/2018 wherein the 1st-4th Respondents sought the order of the Court for the enforcement of the payment of the Judgment sum of N320,000,000.00 (Three Hundred and Twenty Million Naira only) and 10% interest Per annum which the 1st-4th Respondents claims in its said motion now stands at the sum of N509,000,000.00 (Five Hundred and Nine Million) as at March, 2018, Upon hearing the motion Ex-Parte of the 1st-4th Respondents, the Court below on the 4th June, 2018 proceeded to issue a Garnishee Order Nisi wherein it ordered the Appellant to

appear before it to show cause why the Order Nisi should not be made absolute for the payment to the Judgment Creditors from the Judgment Debtors’ funds in its custody in satisfaction of the Judgment sum.
That upon being served with the Order Nisi, the Appellant immediately filed an affidavit to show cause stating that it does not maintain or keep any account or mandatory deposit in the name of either the 5th, 6th or 7th Respondents. The Preliminary Objection was withdrawn, so it is not part of the Court’s record having been struck out. Consequently, it cannot be part of the documents to be considered on Appeal. The Court, however proceeded to make the Order Nisi Absolute on the 18th February, 2019 regardless of the Affidavit to show cause filed by the appellant which clearly showed that the 5th, 6th and 7th Respondents do not maintain any account with the Appellant. That the Court held that the funds of the 5th and 6th Respondents can be traced to the account of the Nigerian Customs Service who with respect is not a party to neither Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/157/08 nor the Garnishee Proceedings in Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/301/2018.

The Appellant distilled three (3) issues for determination in its Brief of Argument to wit;
1. Whether in view of the relevant provisions of Section 84 of the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act, Cap. S6, LFN, 2004, the Court below had the requisite Jurisdiction to entertain and sustain the Garnishee proceedings before it- Distilled from Grounds 1 & 2 of the Notice of Appeal.
2. Whether the Garnishee Order Absolute is not liable to be set aside, the Appellant having disclosed that it does not maintain any account in the name of the 5th, 6th and 7th Respondents who are non-juristic persons unknown to law- Distilled from Ground 3 of the Notice of Appeal.
3. Whether the Garnishee Order Absolute is not liable to be set aside, the said order having attached the funds of Nigeria Customs Service, a non-party to the proceedings in place of the 5th and 6th Respondents who are non-juristic persons- Distilled from Ground 4 of the Notice of Appeal.

The Appellant’s Brief, dated the 28th of February, 2020 and filed on the 2nd of March, 2020 was settled by Aare-Olumuyiwa Akinboro, SAN. The 1st-4th Respondents submitted three (3) issues for determination to wit;

Whether the Court below was right when he held that the Garnishee in this case does not stand as a public officer and that the consent of the Attorney-General was not required before commencing the Garnishee Proceedings. (Culled from Grounds 1 & 2).
2. Whether the Court below was right to discountenance the Appellant’s Affidavit to show cause. (Culled from Ground 3).
3. Whether Ground 4 of the Notice of Appeal is competent and assuming it is competent, whether the lower Court was right in holding that the Nigeria Customs Service is the principal Judgment Debtor in this case.

The 1st – 4th Respondents’ Brief was settled by Eberechi Adele, SAN, JP. The 1st- 4th Respondent’s Brief dated the 18th of May, 2020 was filed on the 20th of May, 2020.

The Appellant’s Reply Brief dated the 7th of September, 2020 and filed on the same day, formulated two issues for determination on the competence of Ground 4 of the Appellant’s Ground of Appeal as follows:
a. Whether or not the issue of the Juristic personality of the Judgment Debtors arises in view of the Order Nisi made by the Court below and whether it can be raised for the first in this Appeal.<br< p=”” style=”box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;”>

</br<>

Whether or not the Ground 4 and its particulars is competent and arose from the decision of the trial Court appealed against.A perusal of the issues raised by both Parties reveals that, this appeal can be determined by the resolution of two issues as follows;
1. Whether the Garnishee is a Public Officer and the consent of the Attorney-General is required in the instant case before commencing the Garnishee Proceedings.
2. Whether the Garnishee Order Absolute is not liable to be set aside, the said order having attached the funds of Nigeria Customs Service, a non-party to the proceedings in place of the 5th and 6th Respondents who are non-juristic persons.

ISSUE 1
Whether the Garnishee is a Public Officer and the consent of the Attorney-General is required in the instant case before commencing the Garnishee Proceedings.

Learned Counsel to the Appellant submits that the trial Court in the Garnishee Proceedings lacks the requisite jurisdiction to entertain and sustain the Garnishee Proceedings on the grounds that the Appellant is a Public Officer within the meaning and intendment of Section 18 of the Interpretation Act,

Section 318 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, Section 3 of the Interpretation Act, Cap 123, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004 and Section 84 of the Sheriff and Civil Processes Act, 2004. That the consent of the Attorney General is a condition precedent, which ought to be sought and obtained before the commencement of the Garnishee Proceedings before the Court below to attach the purported funds of the 5th-7th Respondents in compliance with Section 84 of the Sheriffs and Civil Processes Act.

Learned Counsel to the 1st-4th Respondents in response states that the CBN is not a Public Officer but functions as a Banker to the Federal Government and its agencies. Cites CBN V. NJEMANZE (2015) 4 NWLR Pt. 1449, P. 276, PURIFICATION TECHNIQUES NIG. LTD. V. A.G. LAGOS STATE (2004) 9 NWLR Pt. 879 P. 665 at 680, and CBN V. INTERSTELLA COMMS LTD (2015) 8 NWLR Pt. 1462 P. 456. That the experience from precedence is that the Attorney-General’s consent is usually refused and therefore the CBN has consistently and masterfully taken advantage of that controversy to deny Judgment Creditors the hard-earned fruits of their Judgment.

Further states that the Attorney-General is a full-fledged, proper and active party in this case as he is fully responsible for the actions and misactions of Government in any litigation where the Honorable Attorney General is a party. That the whole idea and legal purpose of Section 84 Sheriffs and Civil Processes Act is to enable the Attorney-General to have “prior knowledge” that funds earmarked for certain purposes are diverted to satisfy a Judgment which he is not aware of. Submits that, the consent of the Attorney-General should be routine and in the instant case, the consent of the Attorney-General was not necessary.

In the Appellant’s Reply Brief to the 1st-4th Respondent’s brief, learned Counsel submits that the consent of the Attorney-General cannot be dispensed with as the Attorney-General was merely a nominal party in the substantive suit and was not the substantive Judgment Debtor. Learned Counsel argues that the Supreme Court recognizes the general interpretation of Section 84 of the Sheriffs and Civil Processes Act which requires the consent of the Attorney-General of the Federation before attaching monies in the custody of the Central Bank of

Nigeria as a Public Officer. That the Apex Court determined that the peculiar nature and circumstances presented in CBN V. INTERSTELLAR (2018) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1618) 294 made it an exception to the general interpretation of Section 84 of the Sheriffs and Civil Processes Act.

custody of a public officer who holds a public office in the public service of the State, the Attorney-General of the State”
The above provision simply means that where the money liable to be attached by Garnishee Proceedings is in the custody of a Public Officer in his official capacity, that Order Nisi shall not be made without the consent of the appropriate officer, which means the Attorney General of the Federation or the State as the case may be.
In determining this issue, the question is whether or not the Appellant is a Public Officer in relation to the instant case. The relationship between the Appellant, Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) and the Judgment Debtors is said to be one between a banker and its customer and by the provisions of Sections 2(e) and 36 of the CBN Act, the CBN acts as a banker to the Federal Government and its Agencies. Government bank accounts are to be treated no differently from the bank accounts of every other juristic personality or customers. The CBN therefore does not fall under the category of Public Officers in the context of Section 84 of the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act.

In the case of CBN V. INTERSTELLAR COMMUNICATIONS LTD & ORS (2017) LPELR – 43940 (SC), the Apex Court held thus;
“It is apparent herein, on the facts of this case that the CBN acts as a Banker to the Federal Government 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… “Per Ogunbiyi, J.S.C. (Emphasis Supplied).
Having established that the Appellant is not a Public Officer, the requirement of obtaining the consent of the Hon. Attorney-General of the Federation before funds can be released to the 1st-4th Respondents does not apply to the instant case. It can be seen from the Record of Appeal on Pages 44-45 that the 1st-4th Respondents performed their due diligence by seeking the consent of the Hon. Attorney-General which application

was duly received but ignored it for an entire year. See PURIFICATION TECHNIQUES (NIG) LTD V. ATTORNEY GENERAL, LAGOS STATE (2004) 9 NWLR (pt. 879) 665.
It is important at this point to re-emphasize that the principle underlying securing the consent of the Hon. Attorney-General as prescribed in Section 84 Sheriffs and Civil Processes Act is to avoid embarrassment on the Government of not having the prior knowledge that funds earmarked for some purposes have been diverted in satisfaction of a Judgment debt, which the Government may not know anything about. Judgment creditors should not be deprived of their monies in the name of requiring consent from the Hon. Attorney-General as other Federal Government Agencies will exploit this avenue to owe private bodies, which would be harsh and unfair.
In the interpretation of Laws and Statutes, it is important to put into consideration, the intendment of the makers of the legislation.
“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. ” Per Ogunbiyi J.S.C. in the case of CBN V. INTERSTELLAR COMMUNICATIONS LTD & ORS (Supra), See also the case of PURIFICATION TECH (NIG.) LTD V. A.G. LAGOS STATE (2004) 9 NWLR (PT 8790) 665.
In resolving this issue against the Appellant, I am bound by the decision of the Apex Court in CBN V. INTERSTELLAR COMMUNICATIONS LTD & ORS (Supra) that the Appellant is not a Public Officer, therefore the consent of the Hon. Attorney-General of the Federation is not required.

ISSUE TWO
Whether the Garnishee Order Absolute is not liable to be set aside, the said order having attached the funds of Nigeria Customs Service, a non-party to the proceedings in place of the 5th and 6th Respondents who are non-juristic persons.
It is the submission of the learned Counsel to the Appellant that an artificial person who claims to have the right to sue and be sued must prove by the production of the Certificate of Incorporation or make reference to the enabling statute creating it and

conferring it with powers to act in the circumstance. That the body referred to as “Customs, Immigration and Prisons Board (CIPB) in the suit at the trial Court is not known to law and does not exist and that the only name close to the 5th Respondent is the Immigration and Prisons Services Board established by the Immigration and Prisons Services Board Act, Cap. 12, LFN, 2004 which is solely responsible for the administration of Immigrations and Prisons services.

Submits that the Nigerian Customs Service being a completely separate entity from the purported 5th Respondent cannot therefore be vicariously liable for their actions leading up to the commencement of the suit at the trial Court. Further submits that the 6th Respondent (The Comptroller General of Customs) is neither a Federal, State nor Local Government Agency capable of maintaining an account with the Appellant and does not maintain any account with the Appellant. Learned Counsel urged the Court to set aside the Garnishee Order Absolute made against the Appellant as the Appellant is incapable of obeying the said Order.

In response, learned Counsel to the 1st- 4th Respondents raised a

Preliminary Objection against the competence of Ground 4 of the Grounds of Appeal for two reasons; stating that the issue of the juristic or non- juristic personality of the 5th and 6th Respondents is one which ought to have been raised, pleaded and canvassed at the trial of the substantive suit, the enforcement of which is the subject of the Garnishee proceedings culminating in this appeal. The second reason being that the complaint did not arise from the decision appealed against. Learned Counsel submits that the trial Court did not make any pronouncement or reference to the legal personality of the 5th and 6th Respondents at the trial of the suit; the enforcement of which culminated in the Garnishee Proceedings and that a valid ground of appeal can only arise from the decision appealed against.
Learned Counsel states that in the alternative, even assuming without conceding that Ground 4 is competent, the Appellant is expected to understand that as at 2008 when the substantive suit was instituted, the party to sue in cases either against the Customs or Immigration or Prisons was the Customs, Immigration and Prisons Services Board as established by the

Customs, Immigration and Prisons Services Board Act, Cap 89 LFN 1990.

Responding to the Preliminary Objection of the 1st- 4th Respondents, learned Counsel submits that the issue of status, identity and juristic personality of the 5th and 6th Respondents arose in the Garnishee Orders of the trial Court and being a jurisdictional issue, it can be raised at any time, even for the first time on appeal. Cites C.B.N v. OKOJIE (2015) 14 NWLR (PT. 1479) 231. Further submits that the trial Court having proceeded to make the Order Nisi Absolute and further ordering that the funds of the Nigerian Customs Service (who was neither a party to the substantive suit nor in the Garnishee Proceeding from which this Appeal emanated) should be used to satisfy the judgment debt of the judgment debtors is enough to give life to the complaint raised in Ground 4 of the Notice of Appeal.

It is true that the issue of the status, identity and juristic personality of a party is a jurisdictional issue which can be raised at any time, even for the first time on appeal. The Apex Court classified the issue of juristic personality as a jurisdictional issue by the decision in the

case of SOCIO-POLITICAL RESEARCH DEVELOPMENT V. MINISTRY OF FEDERAL CAPITAL TERRITORY & ORS (2018) LPELR – 45708 (SC) which held that;
“The appellant contended in the said reply brief of argument that the first issue the respondents raised is whether the appeal is not incompetent by virtue of the fact that the appellant lacks the requisite legal personality to maintain and sustain an action or appeal. The appellant contended further that this is the same as appellants issue 4.
There is no doubt that this issue of juristic personality of the appellant touches and affects the jurisdiction and competence of the Court to entertain the matter, hence it can be raised at any time and level of the Courts. “Per Ariwoola, JSC. (Emphasis Supplied).

reach a decision on the matter. It will also be exercised where the Court is satisfied that it would meet the justice of the case. “Per Kekere-Ekun, JSC. (Emphasis Supplied).

Flowing from the above, it is clear that the issue of jurisdiction can be raised as a fresh issue on appeal but only with the leave of the Court. The question here is, did the Appellant seek the leave of the Court before raising this fresh issue of jurisdiction on appeal? There is no evidence before this Court that leave was sought and granted to raise the fresh issue of the juristic personality of the 5th and 6th Respondents in this appeal. The Records do not reflect such an application and this Court is bound by the Records transmitted therein.
The failure of the Appellant to seek the leave of Court before raising Ground 4 of the Notice of Appeal has made Ground 4 of the Notice of Appeal and issue three (3) distilled therefrom liable to be struck out.
However, in the pursuit of justice, it is the duty of the Court to ensure that substantial justice is done because technical justice is dangerous and prevents the Court from dealing with the case on its merits which is

against the interest of justice. Therefore, in the interest of justice, this Court shall determine the issue raised by the Appellant.

The first leg of the argument in this issue is, whether or not the body referred to as “Customs, Immigration and Prisons Service Board” is known to Law and has a juristic personality capable of being sued.
Firstly, the Customs and Excise Management Act makes reference to the Customs, Immigration and Prisons Services Board, established under Section 1 of the Customs, Immigration and Prisons Services Board Act. Section 3 and 4 of the Customs and Excise Management Actprovides that:
“3, (1) The Board referred to under this Act is the Customs, Immigration and Prisons Services Board established under Section 1 of the Customs, Immigration and Prisons Services Board Act.
(2) The constitution, proceedings and functions of that Board are provided for under, Sections 2 and 3 of that Act.
4. (1) The Board shall, subject to the general control of the Minister, be charged with the duty of controlling and managing the administration of the customs and excise laws and shall collect the revenues of customs and

excise and account for them in such manner as may be directed.
(2) Any power conferred and any duty imposed upon the Board may be exercised or performed by the Board or by an officer authorised generally or specifically in that behalf by the Board.
Secondly, the Nigerian Customs Service Board Act under Sections 1 and 2 provides that;
1) There is hereby established under the control of the Federal Ministry of Finance, a board to be known as the Nigerian Customs Service Board (in this Act referred to as “the Board”) which shall be responsible for the administration of the Customs and Excise Management Act
(2) Accordingly-
(a) any reference in the Customs and Excise Management Act-
(i) to the Customs, Immigration and Prisons Service Board or to Board, shall be construed as a reference to the Nigerian Customs Service Board established under this Act;
The above provisions give life to the existence of the Customs Immigration and Prisons Service Board as it is known to law and is capable of being sued.

It is true as argued by the 1st – 4th Respondents that as at 2008 when the substantive suit was instituted, the party to sue

in cases either against the Customs or Immigration or Prisons was the Customs, Immigration and Prisons Services Board as established by the Customs, Immigration and prisons Services Board Act, Cap 89 LFN 1990. See the case of AGBEFAWO AREMU TAJUDEEN V. CUSTOMS, IMMIGRATION & PRISONS SERVICE BOARD (2009) JELR 33826 (CA) where the action was commenced in 2002 at the trial Court.
It is not enough for the Appellant to aver in their affidavit that they do not maintain any accounts in the name of the 5th, 6th and 7th Respondents. The facts placed before the Court as stated in the previous page disclose a close association between the trio. Flowing from the above, it is only reasonable that the trial Court in making the Garnishee Order Absolute will attach the funds of the Nigeria Customs Service, even though it was not a party to the suit when it held on Pages 354-355 of its Ruling that:
“What is expected of the Garnishee is to truthfully disclose and produce to this Court evidence of the Statement of Account or Statement of Revenues in the Treasury Single Account (TSA) standing to the credit of the Nigeria Customs… The fact that the Nigeria Customs

Service keeps its funds in the Central Bank is part of the TSA policy. This is a fact of common and public knowledge in Nigeria and requires no proof by virtue of S. 124 (1)(a) and 2 of the Evidence Act, 2011”
The laws that govern Garnishee Proceedings are the Sheriffs and Civil Processes Act, Judgment (Enforcement) Rules and Civil Procedure Rules of various High Courts. Order II Rule 16 of the Judgment (Enforcement) Rules provides that:
“Where a person not being a party in a proceeding obtains an order or has an order made in his favour, he shall be entitled to enforce obedience to such order by the same process as if he were a party in the proceeding; and any person not being a party in a proceeding against whom obedience to any judgment may be enforced, shall be liable to the same process for enforcing obedience to such judgment as if he were a party to the proceeding.”
The trial Court was not out of place when it made absolute the Order Nisi of 4th June, 2018 issued against the Garnishee (Central Bank of Nigeria) by attaching the sum of N509,000,000.00 (Five Hundred and Nine Million Naira Only) being Judgment debt plus accrued

interest as at March, 2018 to satisfy the Judgment delivered in favour of the Judgment Creditors/Garnishors in Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/157/08 together with the cost of the Garnishee Proceeding. The Ruling of the Court is therefore binding on the Appellant.

I resolve this issue in favour of the 1st – 4th Respondents.
This appeal lacks merit and is hereby dismissed.
The Ruling of the Federal High Court, Abuja, Coram E.I. Ekwo (J.) delivered on the 18th of February, 2019 is hereby affirmed

STEPHEN JONAH ADAH, J.C.A.: I was privileged to read in draft the judgment just delivered by my learned brother, Monica Bolna’an Dongban-Mensem, PCA.

Having gone through the reasoning and the analysis of all the issues raised in this appeal, I am in agreement with the reasoning and the conclusion that this appeal is lacking in merit and must be dismissed. I equally abide by the order affirming the decision of the lower Court delivered on the 18th February, 2019.

YARGATA BYENCHIT NIMPAR, J.C.A.: I had the opportunity of reading in advance the judgment just delivered by the learned

President, Court of Appeal, MONICA BOLNA’AN DONGBAN-MENSEM, HPCA and I am in complete agreement with the reasoning and resolution of the issues donated for determination in this appeal. I have nothing more to add and abide by the orders made therein the lead judgment.

Appearances:

Aare-Olumuyiwa Akinboro, SAN with him Bunyamba Lawan, Esq. and Chidera Onoh-Cosmos, Esq. For Appellant(s)

Eberechi Adele, SAN, JP with him Olabode Akindele, Esq., for the 1st – 4th Respondents. For Respondent(s)