CENTRAL BANK OF NIGERIA v. J. I. NWANYANWU & SONS ENTERPRISES NIGERIA LIMITED
(2014) LCN/7032(CA)
RATIO
GARNISHEE PROCEEDING: WHETHER AN ORDER NISI WOULD BE GRANTED WHERE THE MONEY SOUGHT TO BE ATTACHED UNDER A GARNISHEE PROCEEDING IS IN THE CUSTODY OR CONTROL OF A PUBLIC OFFICIAL IN THAT CAPACITY
This issue in my view goes to Jurisdiction, if found tenable. Section 84(1) of the Sheriff and Civil Process Act Cap 56, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004 has this to say “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 proceeding 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” Section 84(3)(a) stipulates that (a) ln 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………………….”
By Section 318 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999, “Public Service of the Federation” means the service of the Federation in any capacity in respect of the Government of Federation, and includes service as (e) “Staff of a statutory corporation established by an Act of the National Assembly”
In Section 19 of the Fifth Schedule to the Constitution 1999, (the Interpretation of Section) – “Public Office” means a person holding any of the offices specified in Part II of this Schedule. Paragraph 14 of the Schedule talks about “Chairman and members of the Boards or other governing bodies and staff of statutory corporation and of company in which the Federal or State Government has controlling interest.”
There is nothing to show that the Respondent sought and obtained leave of the Federal Attorney-General before instituting garnishee proceedings against the Appellant who is clearly a Public service body manned by a Public servant. That makes the proceedings a nullity in Law.
It is trite law that the Court does not, and ought not to give Judgment to an incompetent action if the condition precedent to assuming jurisdiction has not been complied with. – MADUKOLU V. NKEMDILIM (2001) 46 WRN. Failure to obtain the consent of the Federal Attorney General makes the whole Garnishee proceedings a nullity and I so hold. Per Rita Nosakhare Pemu, J.C.A.
