Judgment Enforcement Frustrations and Impediments in the Sherriff and Civil Processes Act

Friday, February 05, 2021 / 04:47AM / By Segun Awosanya / Header Image
Credit: SIAF / ThisdayLive

“Our next most important collective advocacy must be
the abolishment of an impediment in the Sherriff and Civil Process Act of
1955 which frustrates the enforcement of court judgement as regards
compensation against government agencies. It is estimated that thirty-five
percent or more cases before most Judicial Panel of inquiry across Nigeria are
based on already decided cases with compensation awarded to plaintiff(s) which
they are not able to enforce on account of that Act.

Below is a first attempt at presenting the case for
reversing the setback often encountered in ending police brutality and human
rights abuses in Nigeria.”

On the 1st of February, 2021, the Federal High Court
sitting in Oshogbo, Osun State awarded the sum of N5,000,000.00 (Five Million
Naira Only) as aggravated and general damages against the Nigeria Police Force
and the Inspector General of Police for the flagrant abuse of the rights of one
Mrs Adetola Halima Abdulazeez in a fundamental rights enforcement suit
instituted by the Abuja based legal practitioner, Pelumi Olajengbesi Esq. The
pronouncement of the Court in the judgment came at a time the nation has just
been confronted with protest across the country wherein Nigerian youth trooped
out en-masse to protest against police brutality and other human rights abuses.

The Judgment is therefore a victory to the nation in
the fight against police brutality and abuse of powers as resonated in the
words of the court. However, what should be a thing of joy for the victim
whose case appears to be a beacon of hope to many Nigerians has been targeted
for frustration by the moribund process of enforcing this judgement as
encapsulated in the extant laws on enforcement of monetary judgement against
government agencies.

Notwithstanding the fact that pronouncements of this
nature seek to compensate victims of human rights violations, the sad and
avoidable reality is that successful litigants are overburdened with the
onerous task of enforcing these pronouncements. One would have thought that a
system that provides the legal framework for enforcement of fundamental rights
would guarantee that fundamental rights are not only protected and compensation
awarded; but also ensure that the payment of the compensation so awarded
without the need of imposing additional burden of seeking the consent of any
administrative body. It is against this background that the provisions of section
84 of the Sheriff and Civil Processes Act 1955, which made the consent
of the Attorney General of the Federation or State as the case maybe a
condition precedent condemnable to say the least.

The implication of this provision is that no monetary
judgement can be enforced against any public institution without the consent of
the Federal or State Attorney General. Given the fact that the larger
percentage of victims of human right violations and abuse are poor, it is
almost impossible for this class of people to obtain the requisite consent.
This thus defeats the purpose for which courts award damages against erring
parties, especially in relation to its punitive nature which serves as a
deterrent to government agencies. Furthermore, it violates the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which under Article 2(3) calls on member
states to ensure that victims of human rights abuse have an enforceable and
effective remedy determined by a competent court.

In fact, article 19 of the United Nations
Declaration on the Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime and Abuse
of Power imposed a duty on states to incorporate into the national law
norms proscribing abuses of power and providing remedies to victims of such
abuses. In particular, such remedies include restitution and/or compensation,
and necessary material, medical, psychological and social assistance and
support. Rather abiding by these basic principles of justice, the Nigerian
government is busy creating impediments for victims who are merely trying to
reap the fruit of their labour.

The growing number of recorded of cases of police
brutality, human rights violations and abuse of power in astronomical terms has
contributed largely to the growing incidence of citizens’ resort to self-help
and other informal methods of airing grievances as displayed during the recent
#ENDSARS protest. The inauguration of Panels of Inquiry across the country as
an off shoot of the #ENDSARS protest have availed victims of police brutality
an avenue to seek relief from their ordeals. While this is laudable, the
possibility of enforcing judgement obtained in court or any recommendation made
in related cases seeking enforcement by the panel of inquiry, has been reduced
to nought by the daunting realities facing the Nigerian Legal System, hence the
need for sound engagement and conversation about the enforcement of judgement
in Nigeria against government agencies.

Contrary to the layman’s notion, ‘winning a case’ in Nigeria extends beyond obtaining positive judgement in court. It includes
the enforcement of such judgements, which is the last stage of every judicial
process. Thus, every judgement creditor, that is a party in whose favour
judgement was entered, is entitled to the accruing benefits of the judgement
obtained and same must be enforced in compliance with the provisions of the
law. This is a corollary to the duty of the court, as expressed in a plethora
of authorities, to enforce its orders, decisions and judgements as well as
ensuring the speedy resolution of disputes. In effect, the court officials
saddled with the responsibility of discharging this obligation include Chief
Registrars, who invariably are the Deputy Sheriffs, the Bailiffs and other
relevant court personnel.

As a matter of law, every judgement is effective from
the date of delivery or from such date as the judgment itself appoints and same
must be obeyed without question. A default on the part of the judgement debtor – the party against whom judgement was entered – in complying with the
judgement of the court entitles the judgment creditor to commence Judgement
Enforcement proceedings.

The Sheriff and Civil Processes Act and
Judgement Enforcement Rules make provisions for the modes of enforcing
judgement to wit: writ of fi fa, writ of sequestration, writ of possession,
garnishee proceedings, etc. The Constitution also empowers the Court to enforce
and ensure compliance with its order or judgement as provided in section 6(6)
of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended).
While these provisions of the law give the impression that the Court are ready
to enforce its judgment with despatch, the reverse is the case in reality as
section 84 of the Sheriff and Civil Processes has wrestled from the weak arm of
the victims of fundamental right abuses and a host of other person who has
obtained monetary judgment against the government or any of its agencies the
right to enforce the said judgment through the callous introduction of the
requirement of the consent of the Attorney General of the Federation or State
as the case may be.

Nevertheless, as pleasant as the above provisions may
appear, the process of enforcement of judgment in Nigeria is bedevilled with
several impediments as evidenced in the rigorous processes and procedures; the
effect of which has the capacity of jeopardizing the hope of justice for many
and equally occasioning the abuse of human rights across the country. There is
a hurdle of administrative technicalities ranging from the mandatory need to
seek the leave of court to enforce judgment against the government or any of
its agencies. Thus, victims on many occasions find themselves at the mercy of
the judge who is not under any legal compulsion to grant such leave. Even when
the leave is granted, issues of administrative lethargy results in victims
suffering more at the hands of their oppressor. For instance, in an action for
fundamental right enforcement against unlawful detention, the court may grant
an order releasing the victim from custody but the authorities involved may be
unyielding thereby prolonging the victim’s stay in custody against his
fundamental right.

To add more to the victim’s herculean tasks, the
additional obligation of bearing the cost of enforcement without which the
process of enforcement will be abandoned. He is responsible for mobilizing the
Sheriff of the court in the discharge of his official duty even though there is
an allocation for same and also pays for the expense of the conveyance of the
judgement debtor to prison in the case of the latter’s default in obeying the
court’s order. With particular reference to judgment obtained against the government
or any of its officials, the judgement creditor may need to further mobilize
his lawyer to commence an action for garnishee proceeding even where there is
no certainty that the Attorney General will consent to the payment of the
judgement sum.

The foregoing impediments to enforcement of judgments
in Nigeria has led to lack of confidence in the court and the judiciary in the
whole. It is alarming and the impact is felt more strongly by the poor who
usually fall victim to human right violations and abuse. To further
compound their misery, the race to access justice in Nigeria is more like a
journey to Golgotha as many victims who have had to tread that path after
enduring attendant delays often return more dejected and depressed than they were
before seeking justice.

As a result, many victims of human rights violations
consider the search for justice in Nigeria as an effort in futility thereby
giving impetus to unscrupulous police officers to continue with the flagrant
abuse of human rights. This I think is also responsible for the continued human
rights violations by officers of the Nigerian Police Force as the agency is yet
to feel the weight of the law in terms of constantly paying court ordered
damages.

It is therefore pertinent that to address the issue of
human rights abuses by security agencies and police brutality in particular,
there is an urgent need to review some of our laws to ensure seamless judgement
enforcement processes for litigants even against government agencies.

A total review of the judicial system particularly the
aspect of judgement enforcement against government agencies will help to hold
government and its agencies accountable for their actions and omissions and
bring the occurrences of human rights abuses to the barest minimum. It is
inconceivable that there exists a justice system where after successfully
prosecuting a matter before a court of law, litigants find that enforcing such
judgment is a near impossible and this is sadly the case in Nigeria.

This, therefore, underscores the need for collective
and concerted action towards rejigging our laws to allow for ease in Judgement
enforcement against Law enforcement agencies and institutions of government.

In benchmarked climes, a Special Fund is
normally created for the compensation of the victims of human right violations
and abuses from which victims are entitled to be paid immediately the court
makes a finding that their fundamental rights have been violated.

About the Author

SEGA (‘Segun Awosanya’), is the
President/Founder SIAF (Social
Intervention Advocacy Foundation). He can be contacted via SIAF Mobile +234 805
156 4653. You can follow him on twitter via @SIAF_NG and @segalink