IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA
IN THE ABUJA JUDICIAL DIVISION
HOLDEN AT ABUJA
Before His Lordship:-
HON. JUSTICE E.D. E ISELE – JUDGE
DATE: TUESDAY 2NDMAY 2017 NICN/ABJ/204/2013
BETWEEN
MR.OBI ERIC AUSTINE CLAIMANT
AND
(1)INSPECTOR GENERALOFPOLICE (2) POLICE SERVICE COMMISSION DEFENDANTS
(3) THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE
FEDERATION
AND
(1) UNITED BANK FOR AFRICA (UBA)
(2) UNION BANK OF NIGERIAGARNISHEES/RESPONDENT
REPRESENTATION:Parties absent. Eunice Egbuche; holding the brief Uchenna Okafor for UBA PLC.
RULING
On the 31st of May 2016 this Court made an Order nisi attaching the Debt due or money accruing from account No 1018240004 with branch sort code No. 033083696 in the sum of N24,494,368.00 (Twenty Four Million, Four Hundred andSixty Eight Naira only) belonging to the Defendant Judgement Debtors/Respondents with the 1st Garnishee United Bank for Africa (UBA) Plc Owena House Central Area, Federal Capital Territory Abuja.
It was also Ordered that an Order nisi issue attaching the debt due to or money accruing from the account no. 0005273406 to the sum of N24,494,368.00 (Twenty Four Million, Four Hundred and Ninety Four Thousand, Three Hundred and SixtyEight Naira only) belonging to the Defendants/Judgment Debtors Respondents with the 2nd Garnishee Union Bank of Nigeria Plc Plot 2793, Aguyi Ironsi Maitama F.C.T. Abuja.
Upon service of said order nisi the 2nd Garnishee Respondent, Union Bank of Nigeria Plc filed a motion on notice praying for an order of Court (which was granted) for enlargement of time for the 2nd Garnishee/Respondent Union Bank of Nigeria Plc to file and serve the motion and affidavit showing cause why the Order Nisi should not be made absolute against the 2nd garnishee Union Bank Plc who are not party to the suit.
Secondly, the motion prays for an order of the Court staying execution of An Order Nisi attaching the debt due or money accruing from account no 0005273406 belonging to the Nigeria Police Corporative Multipurpose Society Ltd to the sum of N24,494,368.00(Twenty Four Million, Four Hundred and Ninety Four Thousand, Three Hundred and Sixty Eight Naira only being the sum with the 2nd Garnishee/Respondent (Union Bank Plc) pending the hearing and determination of the motion before the Court.
Thirdly the applicant prayed for an order that the 1st and 2nd Defendants/Judgment Debtors/Respondent /2ndGarnishee have no property, lien, or any interest whatsoever in the account of the 2nd Garnishee Respondent. The fourth prayer was for an order discharging the 2nd Garnishee Respondent.
The motion was supported by an affidavit deposed to by one Jatto Victor in 14 paragraphs with attached exhibits and a written address. The 2nd Garnishee also filed an affidavit showing cause why the order nisi should not be made absolute in 7 paragraphs deposed to by one Abdul A. Lawal.
The Judgement Creditor Applicant responded by a counter affidavit deposed to by one Micheal Ikojo attaching exhibits and the written address in support of the counter affidavit.
On the 28th of June 2016 the 1st Garnishee United bank for Africa (UBA) filed its own affidavit to show cause in 6 paragraphs deposed by one Daniel Eze. On the same 28th of June 2016 the 2nd garnishee Respondent filed a reply affidavit to the Judgment Creditor’s counter affidavit and written address. On the 8th of July 2016 the Judgment Creditor filed a reply on points of Law as well as an affidavit in reply against the 2nd Garnishee Applicants reply dated 27th of June, 2016. On the same 8th of July 2016 the Judgement Creditor/Applicant filed a counter affidavit against the 2nd Garnishee Applicants affidavit to show cause dated 15th of June, 2016. On the same day the Judgment Creditor Applicant filed a counter affidavit against the 1st Garnishee Bank’s affidavit to show cause of 28th June 2016.
On the 14th of July 2016, the 1st Garnishee filed a further and better affidavit.
In the affidavit in support of the motion of the 2nd Garnishee Union Bank of Nigeria of the 14th June 2016 the Deponent averred that he was informed by the legal Department of the Nigeria Police Cooperative Multipurpose Society Limited on 9th June, 2016 at their offices that Union Bank of Nigeria Plc was on the 8th of June 2016 served on the Nigeria Police Cooperative Multipurpose Society Limited, a copy of the Garnishee Order nisi dated 1st June 2016, wherein the Nigeria Police Cooperative Multipurpose Society Ltd.’s Union Bank of Nigeria Plc Account No. 0005273406, was erroneously attached in the garnishee order. That the Nigeria Police Cooperative Multipurpose Society Limited is a body registered under the law as a separate legal entity, distinct from the Inspector General of Police and the Police Service Commission. Attached with the affidavit was a copy of the certificate of Registration as Exhibit A.
At paragraph 7 of the said affidavit it is averred that the Nigeria Police Multipurpose Society being separate and distinct has legal rights to own Bank Accounts separate from the Bank Account of the Inspector General of Police and/or the Police Service Commission. The Deponent emphasized that the account details Union Bank of Nigeria Plc, Account Number 0005273406 erroneously attached in the Garnishee order Nisi owned and operated by the Nigeria Police Cooperative Multipurpose Society. Exhibit B is the proof of account ownership and statement of account of the Nigeria Police Cooperative Multipurpose Society Ltd.
The Deponent maintained that the Multipurpose Society was not a party to the suit and was not mentioned in the Garnishee Order Nisi by the Court. And its members consist of individual police men and women both in service, retired and have their individual membership and accounts with the cooperative society and its obligations as a cooperative are to its known cooperators and has no obligation to the Judgment Creditor since, the Judgment Creditor has no relationship with the cooperative society with regard to this suit.
In the written address in support of the motion a sole issue was formulated for determination.
Whether the Court can grant an order for extention of time to enable the 2nd Garnishee/Respondent show cause why the order nisi should not be made absolute against the 2nd Garnishee Union Bank of Nigeria Plc.
Counsel relied on Section 88 of the Sheriff’s and Civil Process Act cap 56 LFN 2004 that it allows any third party to appear and state the nature of his claims on any Garnishee that debts sought to be attached belongs.
In the 2nd Garnishee’s affidavit to show cause why the Order nisi should not be made absolute the Deponent stated that upon receipt of the Garnishee Order nisi he caused an enquiry to be made on the bank’s System and to know whether the Judgment Debtor viz the Inspector General of Police, the Police Service Commission and Attorney General of the Federation maintain with the 2nd Garnishee. That a thorough search was made on the Bank’s System by the Bank’s Zonal Coordinator/Business Development Manager Abuja Main Branch, Mr. Chris C. Uzuh who returned negative report that none of the Judgment Debtors maintain an account with the Judgment DebtorsBank and a further search of the Bank’s Global database revealed that the said Judgment Debtors had no accounts in their respective names in the Abuja Main Branch or any of its branches worldwide. That the said account 0005273406 does not belong to the Judgment Debtors but the Nigeria Police Coop Ltd. In the written address of the 2nd Garnishee, the issue formulated for determination is whether from the affidavit evidence before the Court, the Court ought to discharge the Garnishee Bank. Here, counsel submitted that the Garnishee has by affidavit evidence shown cause why the order nisi should not be made absolute. That the law is settled that an order nisi will be made absolute if the Garnishee who has been shown to be indebted to the Judgment Debtor by way of Bank Account in such Garnishees custody belonging to the Judgment Debtor and such account is in credit where the Garnishee is unable to show cause why such fund should not be attached an order absolute will be made relying on S. 83 of the SHERIFFS and Civil Processes Act. Cap S.6, 2004.
In the counter affidavit of the Judgment Creditor it is averred that the averments in support of the motion is incorrect, and misleading as account No. 0005273406 was duly opened, owned and/or managed by the Defendants/Judgment Debtors/Respondent and same was duly attached in compliance with the applicable law and not in error. The Deponent exhibited an exhibit marked ‘A’ through a flier of the Nigeria Police Cooperative. The affidavit went on to say that the Nigeria Police Multipurpose Society Ltd used by the Judgment Creditor is a mere nomenclature and that it was not registered at the CAC under the companies and Allied Matters Act cap C20 2004. That the said account belongs to the Judgment Debtors as they and their officers both serving and retired are the sole beneficiaries of the account that the Judgment Debtors were trying to mislead the Court.
In the written address in support of the counter affidavit the issue formulated for determination is “ whether account No. 0005273406 is owned /and /or managed by the Defendants Judgment Debtors/Respondents as to warrant the Honourable Court to make the order nisi issue against same absolute in satisfaction of the Judgement Debt”.
Counsel submitted that a litigant has the right to reap the fruits of his Judgment. Citing BALOGUN V. BALOGUN (1969) 1 ALL NLR 349. Now, the 1st Garnishee United Bank for Africa (UBA) in it’s affidavit to show cause stated that a search was conducted in the database and records of the 2nd Garnishee and account number 033083696 does not exist with the 1st Garnishee (UBA PLC). That the Central bank of Nigeria directed all Banks to remit all fundsbelonging to the Federal Government Agencies, Parastatals and Ministers to the Central Bank in line with Government’s TSA Policy. The letter on this from the CBN dated 7th September 2015 was attached as exhibit A.
The 2nd Garnishee in its reply affidavit filed on the 28th of June 2016 maintained that the averments in the counter affidavit of the Judgement Creditor was misleading and ambiguous. Here the 2nd Garnishee exhibited a copy of the By-Laws of the Nigeria Police Cooperative Multipurpose Society Limited. (As amended in 2014) and a copy of its certificate of Registration under the Lagos State Government Law Chapter C15 of Lagos State. Counsel in his address here formulated two issues for determination
(a) Whether the account number 0005273406 which is not owned nor managed by the Judgment Debtors as to warrant this Honourable Court to make the order nisi issued against the 2nd Garnishee Respondent absolute in satisfaction of the Judgment.
(b) Whether an Order to attach against a person who was not a party to the Action as to warrant this Honourable Court to make an Order Nisi issued against the 2nd Garnishee Respondent (Union Bank Plc) Nigeria Police Cooperative Multipurpose Society Limited absolute in satisfaction of the Judgement debt.
Now, in determining the issues raised between the Judgment Creditor and the 2nd Garnishee bank (Union Bank Plc) as to issue (a), it is the same formulated by the Judgment Creditor in his written address which the 2nd Garnishee equally adopted. Here, on this issue, I find the submission that the 2nd Garnishee is only trying to mislead the Court and the Judgement Creditor must be allowed to reap the fruits of his labour. This is a true proposition of law. I hold however, that it must be in accordance with the provision of the Law. As a matter of fact however on the 1st of June 2016 when the Order nisi was granted by the Court with regard to the 2nd Garnishees ordered the Account No. 0005273406 in the sum of Twenty Four Million, Four Hundred and Ninety-Four Thousand Three Hundred and Sixty Eight naira only (N24,494,368.00) belonging to the Judgment Debtor. The name of the Police Coop Ltd/Multipurpose Society was not mentioned or disclosed on the face of the motion paper where the two principal orders against the two named garnishees were sought. The name of Nigeria Police Coop/Multipurpose Society was equally not mentioned in the affidavit in support of the motion.
Counsel for the Applicant in the motion had relied on Section 88 of the Sheriffs and Civil Processes Act Cap. S.6 2004. It provides:
“Whenever in any proceedings to obtain an attachment of a Debt it is suggested by the Garnishee that the Debt sought to be attached belongs to some third person or that any third person has a lien or charge upon it, the court may order such person to appear and state the nature and particulars of his claim upon such debt.”
The key phrases here is that “the debt sought to be attached belongs to some third person.” In this case the 2nd Garnishee has named the Nigeria Police Cooperative Society Ltd as a 3rd person. I find that the monies in the account do not accrue legally to the 1st and 2nd judgment debtors it belongs to the men and women of the Nigeria Police. I am convinced by the affidavit evidence of the 2 Deponents in support of the motion. I hold that the Multipurpose Society was not a party to the suit and crucially, not mentioned in the garnishee order nisi. I hold further that the monies in account no. 0005273406 belongs to the members of the Nigeria Police Coop Ltd being the members who consist of individual policemen and women both in service, and retired who have their individual membership account. I hold that the accounts be garnished would be doing harm to the said members of the cooperative. I hold finally that the cooperative Society has no relationship with the Judgement Creditor in the context of these proceedings. I find and do hold that the Order nisi would not issue against the 2nd Garnishee.
Now also, to the issue raised by the 1st Garnishee on the TSA, in the UBA’s affidavit to show cause over account No. 033083696 the monies in which account the Deponent averred had been ploughed back to the Central bank of Nigeria, through a policy directive by the Federal Government on its Policy of Treasury Single Accounts which the Court has taken judicial notice of by virtue S.167 of the Evidence Act. The Deponent in the counter affidavit of 8th August, 2017 stated that the said account is a private account duly opened by the Defendant Judgment Debtors/Respondent with the 1st Garnishee for their National Housing Fund deductions. The Judgment Debtors through the deponent averred that 033083696 is the Branch sort code of the Defendant Judgment Debtors Respondent’s Account No. is 101824004 still domiciled with the 1st Garnishee. He went on to state that the Judgment Debtor funds with the 1st Garnishee have not been transferred to the Treasury Single Account. The Judgment Creditor exhibited exhibit a letter dated 19th June 2014 on opening an account with Federal Mortgage Bank. The 1st garnishee (UBA) in response exhibited the details of the said account by its further and better affidavit of UBA places before the statement in the account number 1018240004 from May 1st 2016 to 13 July 2016 showing that on 11th May 2016 N141,136,352.78 has been transferred to the Central bank. Leaving the sum of N1,689,836.00 as balance remaining.
On the 26th September the Judgment Creditor by his reply on points of law urged the court to make an Order under S.87 of the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act. It provides:
“If the garnishee appears and disputes his liability, the Court instead of making an order that execution shall issue, may order that any issue or question necessary for determining his ability be tried or determined in any manner in which any issue of question in any proceedings may be tried or determined or may refer the matter to a referee.”
Having read the judgment creditor’s submission on the need to apply Section 87 of the Sheriff’s and Civil Process Act. I hold straight away that the earlier Order nisi, in the 1st Order nisi on the 1st garnishee was for a ‘given’ account number not sort code, given as Account No. 033083696 and certainly not account number 1018240004. I hold that if account number 1018240004 had been brought before the Court, and the Court had stated it for attachment, then the Court might well have tried to apply S. 87 of the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act, which is not the case here. As a consequence the 1st Garnishee is hereby discharged in these proceedings.
Consequently, the prayers, all of them sought by the 2nd Garnishee are hereby granted as stated on the face of the motion paper filed on 14th June 2016.
Ruling is entered accordingly.
___________________________________
HON. JUSTICE E. D. E. ISELE
JUDGE
