UBA PLC v. ENUGO PETROLEUM LTD & ORS
(2022)LCN/16528(CA)
In the Court of Appeal
(ABUJA JUDICIAL DIVISION)
On Friday, July 08, 2022
CA/A/519/2017
Before Our Lordships:
Biobele Abraham Georgewill Justice of the Court of Appeal
Mohammed Mustapha Justice of the Court of Appeal
Bature Isah Gafai Justice of the Court of Appeal
Between
UNITED BANK FOR AFRICA PLC APPELANT(S)
And
1. ENUGO PETROLEUM LIMITED 2. NIGERIA POLICE FORCE 3. INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE RESPONDENT(S)
RATIO
THE POSITION OF LAW IN MAKING A GARNISHEE ORDER ABSOLUTE
Now in law, a Garnishee Order Absolute being clearly a final Order must not to be made lightly and never in disregard to the facts as placed before a Court by the parties. In other words, where a Garnishee is ordered to show cause had placed before the Court some materials by way of affidavit to show cause, it is incumbent on the Court to carefully consider the facts as furnished before deciding whether or not to make the Order Nisi Absolute, being a final order leaving in essence nothing more to be judicially determined thereafter in order to render such an order effective and capable of execution. See Zenith Bank Plc V. Alhaji Manu Kano & Ors (2016) LPELR- 40335(CA) per Sir Biobele Abraham Georgewill JCA. See also Union Bank of Nigeria Plc. V. Boney Marcus Ind. Ltd & Ors (2005) 13 NWLR (Pt. 943) 654. See also Akinsanya V. United Bank for Africa Ltd (1986) 4 NWLR (Pt. 35) 273, United Bank for Africa Plc. V. Hon Iboro Ekanem & Anor (2009) LPELR 8428 (CA). PER GEORGEWILL, J.C.A.
WHETHER OR NOT AFFIDAVIT EVIDENCE WHICH IS UNCHALLANGED IS DEEMED AS ADMITTED
Now, it is true in law that Affidavit evidence as well as oral evidence of one party which remained unchallenged and or uncontroverted is deemed to be true and or admitted by the adverse party and can be relied and acted upon by the Court to make appropriate findings of facts and reach proper decisions including the discharge of a Garnishee from a Garnishee Order Nisi or from it being made Absolute, unless the unchallenged evidence is palpably false in themselves. See Zenith Bank Plc V. Chief Godwin Omenaka & Anor (2016) LPELR – 40327 (CA) per Sir Biobele Abraham Georgewill JCA. See also Zenith Bank Plc V. Alhaji Manu Kano & Ors (2016) LPELR – 40335 (CA) per Sir Biobele Abraham Georgewill JCA, Zain (Nig) Ltd V. Ilorin (2013) All FWLR (Pt 681) 1518 at 1552, Mokwe V. Ezeuko (2001) FWLR (Pt. 38) 1290.
However, it is also the law that the mere absence of a counter-affidavit does not ipso-facto amount to a conclusive exercise of a favorable discretion. There is a burden of proof on an Applicant which could only be discharged on the satisfaction to the Court with the material facts placed before it. In other words, an unfettered burden lies on the Applicant’s affidavit to stand or fall on its merit. The presumption therefore, that an unchallenged and un controverted averment in an affidavit is deemed admitted does not hold in all situations. Thus, where averments in an affidavit in support of an application are contradictory or if taken together are not sufficient to sustain the Applicant’s prayers, a counter-affidavit in challenge of such averments would manifestly become unnecessary. So also an affidavit which destroys itself by its manifest contradictions need no counter-affidavit against it. This is because there is no rule of law that makes the tiling of a counter-affidavit to an application a sine qua non in every case, since an application can fail even merely on points of law and for other sundry reasons unconnected with a counter-affidavit. See Attorney General of Ondo State Vs Attorney General of Ekiti State (2001) 17 NWLR (Pt. 743) 706. See also Ejefor V. Okeke (2000) 7 NWLR (Pt. 665) 363, Orunlola V. Adeoye (1995) 6 NWLR (Pt 401) 338 AT p. 353, Bello V. AG Lagos State (2017) 2 NWLR (Pt 1017) 115 AT pp. 136 – 138, Arjay Ltd V. Airline Management Ltd (2003) 14 NSCQR 29 AT p. 35. PER GEORGEWILL, J.C.A.
THE POSITION OF LAW WHERE A PIECE OF EVIDENCE IS SAID TO BE CONTRADICTORY
In law, a piece of evidence is said or taken to be contradictory to another when it asserts or affirms the opposite of what the other asserts. Put in another way one piece of evidence contradicts another piece of evidence when it says the opposite of what the other evidence says not just on any and any point but on a material point. Thus, where there are material contradictions in the evidence adduced by a party, the Court is enjoined to reject the entire evidence as it cannot pick or choose which of the conflicting versions to follow. See Taiwo V. Ogundele (2012) LPELR – 7803 (SC). See also Zakirai V. Muhammed (2017) LPELR – 42349 (SC), Kayilli V. Yilbuk & Ors (2015) LPELR – 24323 (SC), Makaan V. Hangem & Ors (2018) LPELR – 44401 (CA). PER GEORGEWILL, J.C.A.
BIOBELE ABRAHAM GEORGEWILL, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): This is an appeal against the ruling of the High Court of Federal Capital Territory, Abuja. Coram: D. Z. Senchi I. in Suit No. FCT/HC/M/6230/2016: Enugo Petroleum Limited & Ors. V. United Bank for Africa Plc delivered on 8/5/2017, in which the Garnishee Order Nisi issued on 26G/2016 against the Appellant in favour of the 1st Respondent was made Absolute.
The Notice of Appeal was filed on 16/5/2017 on three grounds of appeal. See pages 59-61 of the Record of Appeal. The Amended Notice of Appeal was filed on 28/9/2021 on ten grounds of appeal. The Record of Appeal was compiled and transmitted to this Court on 23/10/2017 but was deemed on 21/1/2020. The Additional Record of Appeal by the 1st Respondent was Filed on 22/1/2020. The parties filed and exchange their briefs, which were adopted as their arguments at the hearing of this appeal on 2/6/2022. The Appellant was represented by Uchenna Okafor Esq. The 1st Respondent was represented by Obi C. Nwakor Esq. Registrar; The 2nd and 3rd Respondents were served on 25/5/2022.
BRIEF STATEMENT OF FACTS
On 18/4/2016, the lower Court entered judgment in favour of the 1st Respondent against the 2nd – 3rd Respondents. Subsequently, the 1st Respondent commenced a Garnishee proceeding against the Appellant and on 25/5/2016 it obtained a Garnishee Order Nisi against the Appellant to show cause why the sum of for N27. 946. 385. 78 in the custody of the Appellant held in Account Nos: 1017557923, 1016482974 and 1001529687 and belonging to the 2nd and 3rd Respondents/Judgment debtors should not be paid over to the 1st Respondent in satisfaction of the Judgment debt. Upon the service of the Garnishee Order Nisi, on 23/6/2016 the Appellant filed an Affidavit to show cause, in which it stated inter alia that one of the Garnisheed Account No. 1016482974 has a balance of N272,515,220.12 in the name of Corporate Holding Account, while the other accounts have zero balances and that their search on the data base of the Garnishee revealed that the 1st – 2nd Respondents/Judgment debtors do not have any other account with the Appellant/Garnishee apart from the three named Accounts.
Subsequently, on 3/1 1/2016 the Appellant Filed a Further and Better Affidavit, in which it stated that the sum of N272, 515, 220. 12 contained in the Garnisheed Account No. 1016482974 in the name of Corporate Holding does not belong to the 2nd – 3rd Respondents/judgment debtors but belongs to the Appellant. On the slate of the affidavit and further affidavit evidence of the Appellant, the lower Court ordered for oral evidence to reconcile what it considered the conflicts in the affidavit evidence of the Appellant to determine the liability or otherwise of the Garnishee in respect of the sums in the Garnisheed Account. It also ordered the Garnishee to produce before it all documents relating to the account including that of opening and operating the accounts, instrument of payments and of maintaining and running the account. In obedience to the order of the lower Court, the Appellant called two witness, one Sani Usman, a staff of the Appellant and one Dr. Emeka Elele, of Puzzle Group Nigeria Limited to give oral evidence in clarification of the Affidavit and Further and Better Affidavit in respect of the Garnisheed Account No. 1016482974. The 1st Respondent who had earlier relied on its Affidavit to obtain the Garnishee Order Nisi against the Appellant/Garnishee neither filed any counter-affidavit nor called any oral evidence al the oral hearing before the lower Court. Sec pages 1 – 3, 4 – 8 and 11-12 of the Record of Appeal.
From the Affidavit and Further and Belter Affidavit, as well as the oral evidence of DW1 and DW2 as in the Record of Appeal, the case of the Appellant inter alia was that whilst it is true that a search al the Garnishee Data base revealed that Corporate Holding Account. Account No. 1016482974. one of the Garnisheed Accounts has a balance of N272.515.220.12 as shown in Exhibit A, a copy of the Statement of Account, yet the said Account No. 1016482974 does not belong to the 1st – 2nd Respondents/Judgment debtors but belongs to the Appellant, as its own Internal Suspense Account operated by it for its own convenience and is neither a Mandate based Account nor an account into which any customer could pay money or withdraw money from directly. See pages 4-8 and 11 – 12 of the Record of Appeal.
At the conclusion of the oral hearing, the parties filed and exchange their written addresses, which were subsequently, duly adopted by them on 21/2/2017. On 8/5/2017, the lower Court delivered its ruling in which it disbelieved the evidence of the witnesses called by the Appellant/Garnishee and found in favour of the 1st Respondent and made the Garnishee Order Nisi Absolute, the Appellant having in its finding failed to show cause why the amount of N27, 946, 385. 78 in the custody of the Appellant held in Account No. 1016482974 has a balance of N272,515,220.12 should not be paid over to the 1st Respondent in satisfaction of the judgment debt owed by the 2nd 3rd Respondents, who are the owners of the said Garnisheed Account with the Appellant, hence this appeal. See pages 36 – 56 and 59 – 61 of the Record of Appeal.
ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION
In the Appellant’s brief, four issues were distilled as arising for determination in this appeal, from the ten Grounds of Appeal, namely:
1. Whether the lower Court properly considered the affidavits, oral and documentary evidence of the Appellant and arrived at proper inference, findings and decision from the said evidence before it? (Distilled from Grounds 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 & 9)
2. Whether the lower Court was right when it held that there was apparent conflict or contradictions in paragraphs 4, 5(a), (b) & (c), 6, 7 and 8 of the Affidavit to show cause, and paragraphs 5, 6 and 7 of the further and better Affidavit filed by the Garnishee and that from the oral testimony of Sani Usman, paragraph 5 and 6 of the further and better Affidavit could not be the truth? (Distilled from Ground 10)
3. Whether the lower Court was right when it made the Garnishee Order Nisi Absolute against the Appellant to the effect that the Appellant should pay the sum of N27, 946,385. 78 being the judgment sum to the 1st Respondent. (Distilled from Ground 1)
4. Whether the lower Court was right when it held that the Appellant refused to produce cheques and other instrument used to withdraw money from Account NO. 10166482974? (Distilled from Ground 2)
In the 1st Respondent’s brief, a sole issue was distilled as arising for determination in this appeal, namely:
“Whether the lower Court was right in making the Garnishing Order Nisi Absolute in view of the evidence before it?”
I have taken time to consider the affidavit, oral and documentary evidence of the Appellant and considered the submissions of learned counsel to the parties in their respective briefs in the light of the findings and decisions reached in the Ruling of the lower Court below as in the Record of Appeal. I am of the firm view that the issues arising for determination in this appeal arc the four issues as distilled in the Appellant’s brief, a consideration of which, in my view, would invariably involve a consideration of the sole issue as distilled in the 1st Respondent’s brief. However, I shall consider all the four issues for determination in this appeal together and resolve them in one fell swoop.
ISSUES ONE, TWO, THREE AND FOUR TAKEN TOGETHER
APPELLANT’S COUNSEL SUBMISSIONS
In his submissions on his issue one, which I have taken time to review in its entirety, learned counsel for the Appellant had submitted inter alia that the lower Court failed in its duty to properly consider the affidavits, oral and documentary evidence of the Appellant and arrived at wrong inference, findings and decisions and contended that the totality of the evidence led did not support the finding of fact made by the lower Court which drew wrong inference from the admitted evidence before it and urged the Court to hold that the findings and decisions of the lower Court were perverse and thus liable to be set aside having occasioned a miscarriage of justice and to re-evaluate the entirety of the evidence as in the Record of Appeal and to allow the appeal, set aside the Ruling of the lower Court and discharge the Garnishee Order Absolute made against the Appellant. Counsel relied on Mr. Paul Ezeilo & Anor V. Anthony Okwuchukwu Ezeonu (2019) LPELR – 48336 (CA) (pp. 20 – 22), Aregbesola V. Oyinlola (2010) LPELR – 3805 (CA), Attah V. State (2009) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1164) 284 (CA), Fixity Investment Ltd V. Alhaji Aminu Mohammed Gumel (2016) LPELR – 41549 (CA) AT pp. 12 – 13, Mafimisebi V. Ehuwa (2007) 2 NWLR (Pt. 1018) 385, Fabunmi V. Agbe (1985) 3 SC 28, CDC (Nig.) Ltd V. SCOA (Nig.) Ltd (2007) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1030) 300.
It was also submitted that had the lower Court properly evaluated the evidence it would not have arrived at the perverse finding that the Garnisheed Account No. 1016482974 in the name of Corporate Holding and the money in the said Account belong to the judgment debtors but rather belonged to the Garnishee/Appellant contrary to the perverse finding of the lower Court and contended that the clear evidence before the lower Court was that Account No. 1016482974 in the name of Corporate Holding belongs to and is operated as a suspense account by the Garnishee/Appellant and urged the Court to hold that the lower Court did not consider the totality of the evidence adduced by the Appellant but was only influenced by part of the evidence of DW1, Sani Usman, that sometime in 2012, the Appellant was appointed as one of the Banks to participate in the E – payment system for the payment of salaries of the personnel of the Nigerian Police Force by the Ministry of Police Affairs and to achieve this, the Corporate Holding Account was created to serve as an interface between the Appellant, E-transact and the Ministry of Police Affairs and to allow the appeal and set aside the perverse Findings made against the run of the totality of the evidence led by the Appellant. Counsel relied on Awuse V. Odili (2005) 16 NWLR (Pt. 952) 416 AT p. 506, Chukwucmeka Ezeuko (Alias Dr. Rev. King) V. The State (2016) LPELR – 40046 (SC) p. 49, The MV. Courageous Ace & Ors V. Nigerdock Nigeria Plc (2016) LPELR – 40223 (CA) AT p. 18
In his submissions on his issue two, which I have taken time to review in its entirety, learned counsel for the Appellant had submitted inter alia that the lower Court was wrong when it held that there is apparent conflict or contradictions in paragraphs 4,5(a)(b) and (c). 6, 7 and 8 of the Affidavit to show cause and paragraphs 5, 6 and 7 of the further and better Affidavit both filed by the Garnishee and that from the oral testimony of Sani Usman, paragraph 5 and 6 of the further and better Affidavit cannot be the truth and contended that there was no conflict or contradictions in these paragraphs contrary to the decision of the lower Court in that rather than being in conflict these paragraphs as well as the oral evidence of DW1 complemented each other and urged the Court to hold that the finding by the lower Court that the evidence led by the Appellant were contradictory and not credit worthy were perverse and to re – evaluate the evidence as in the Record of Appeal and arrive at proper findings and allow the appeal, set aside the perverse findings of the lower Court and discharge the Garnishee Order Absolute made against the Appellant for no just cause by the lower Court. Counsel relied on Olabamiji Fiyinfoluwa Uthman V. The State (2020) LPELR – 50213 (CA) AT pp. 24 – 25.
In his submissions on his issue three, which I have taken time to review in its entirety, learned counsel for the Appellant had submitted inter alia that the lower Court was wrong when it made the Garnishee Order Nis Absolute against the Appellant to the effect that the Appellant should pay the sum of N27, 946, 385.78, being the judgment sum to the 1st Respondent considering the provision of Section 83 of the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act and contended that by law the onus is on the Appellant to show cause why the Garnishee Order Nisi should not be made Absolute against it, which is discharged where it succinctly established that the account referred to in the Garnishee Order Nisi does not exist in its system or if it exists, that it does not belongs to the 2nd – 3rd Respondents/Judgment debtors or that it is heavily indebted and not in credit or that the number stated in the Garnishee Order Nisi has since changed to another version or it has a right of set off or lien which are due and effective against the customer and urged the Court to hold that the Appellant duly discharged the onus on it to show cause and the lower Court ought not to have made the Garnishee Order Absolute against the Appellant, and to allow the appeal, set aside the Garnishee Order Absolute made against the Appellant by the lower Court. Counsel relied on Zenith Bank Plc vs. Chief Godwin Omenaka & Anor(2016) LPELR – 40327 (CA).
In his submissions on his issue four, which I have taken time to review in its entirety. learned counsel for the Appellant had submitted inter alia that the lower Court was wrong when it held that the Appellant refused to produce Cheques and other Instruments used to withdraw money from Account NO. 1016482274 before it and contended that it was in evidence that the Appellant was not in custody of cheques and account opening pages of Account No. 1016482974 which belonged to it and urged the Court to hold that the said account is neither a mandate based account nor an account where money can be paid in by anyone or withdrawn by any one directly but a system based account and is used for transactions of the Appellant and to allow the appeal and set aside the finding by the lower Court that the Appellant had withheld any evidence capable of adversely affecting its right to be discharged from the Garnishee Order Nisi having shown sufficient cause as required of it by law merely on account of the alleged failure to produce Cheques and other Instruments as ordered by the lower Court.
1ST RESPONDENT’S COUNSEL SUBMISSIONS
in his submissions on his sole issue, which I have taken time to review in its entirely, learned counsel for the 1st Respondent had submitted inter alia that the lower Court was right when it held that the two affidavits elide upon by the Appellant contradict each other in every material particular and contended that the lower Court having identified the material contradictions in the Appellant’s two affidavits as well as the unreliable oral evidence of DW1 and DW2 was right to have rejected the enure evidence and made the Garnishee Order Nisi Absolute and urged the Court to hold that in the light of the irreconcilable contradictions in the affidavits as well as oral evidence of the Appellant there was nothing for the 1st Respondent to respond and to dismiss the appeal and affirm the correct findings and decisions of the lower Court. Counsel relied onTaiwo V. Ogundele (2012) LPELR – 7803 (SC). See also Zakirai V. Muhammed (2017) LPELR – 42349 (SC), Kayili V. Yilbuk & Ors (2015) LPELR – 24323 (SC), Makaan V. Hangem & Ors (2018) LPELR -44401 (CA), Attorney General of Ondo State Vs Attorney General of Ekiti State (2001) 17 NWLR (PT 743) 706, Ejefor V. Okeke (2000) 7 NWLR (Pt. 665) 363, Orunlola V. Adeoye (1995) 6 NWLR (Pt 401) 338 a p. 353, Bello vs A.G Lagos State (2017) 2 NWLR (Pt 1017) 115 AT p. 136 – 138, Arjay Ltd V. Airline Management Ltd (2003) 14 NSCQR 29 AT p. 35.
It was also submitted that the totality of the evidence of DW1 clearly established that Account No. 1016482974, Corporate Holding Account belongs to the Nigeria Police and contended that in law an admission against self-interest is one of the best forms of proof of a fact in dispute and urged the Court to hold that upon the proper inquiry as required by law to ascertain whether the money in the Corporate Holding Account belonged to the Police or not. the lower Court was right based on the evidence put forward by the Appellant to hold that the money in the said account belonged to the Nigeria Police and urged the Court to hold the 1st Respondent was in law permitted to rely on the positive admission by the DW1 to establish its case against the Appellant and to dismiss the appeal and affirm the correct findings and sound decisions of the lower Court. Counsel relied on Jinadu V. Esurumbi – Aro (2005)14 NWLR (Pt. 944) 142, Seismograph Services Nig Ltd V. Eyuafe (1976) 9 -10 SC 135, Okonkwo v Ogbogu (1996) 37 LRCN 589.
RESOLUTION OF ISSUES ONE, TWO, THREE AND FOUR
On 18/4/2016, judgment was entered for the Judgment Creditor against the Judgment Debtors. On 25/5/2016, the lower Court granted a Garnishee Order Nisi pursuant to an application by the 1st Respondent/Judgment Creditor filed on 26/4/2016. On 8/6/2016. the Garnishee Order Nisi and processes were duly served on the Appellant and the 2nd – 3rd Respondents. On 23/6/2016, the Appellant filed an Affidavit to show cause. On 3/11/2016, the Appellant filed a further and Better Affidavit.
In the Appellant’s Affidavit to show cause deposed to by one Daniel Eze, a litigation and Legal Research Officer in Appellant’s Solicitor’s Chambers, it was stated inter alia that upon the service of the Garnishee Order Nisi a search was conducted in the data base of the Appellant, it was found that the Corporate Holding Account, Account No. 1016482974, has a balance of N272.515,220.12, a copy of the Statement of Account is Exhibit A. It was also stated that Account No. 1001 520687. which is the IG Police Personnel Account has a nil balance, a copy of the Statement of Account is Exhibit B. The other Account No. 1017557923 is the force Reform Account also has a nil balance, a copy of the Statement of Account is Exhibit C, it was then stated that the search also revealed that the Judgment Debtors do not maintain any other account with the Appellant Garnishee. See pages 1 – 2 of the Record of Appeal.
In further affidavit to show cause deposed to by one Sani Usman, Business Manager of the Appellant’s Aminu Kano Wuse II Abuja Branch, it was stated inter that he is the Supervisor responsible for the management of Account Number 1016482974 titled Corporate Holding Account, and that the said account does not belong to the 2nd – 3rd Respondents/Judgment Debtors but is an Internal Suspense Account owned and operated by the Appellant for its own internal convenience. It is neither a mandate-based account nor is it an account into which any customer could pay money or withdraw money from directly. Sec pages 11 – 12 of the Record of Appeal.
Upon, a review of the Affidavit and Further and Belter Affidavit of the Appellant, the lower Court was of the view that there was need for some clarifications in the Affidavit and Further and Better Affidavit in the light of Exhibit A and thereby invoked the provisions of Section 87 of the Sheriffs and Civil Processes Act to Order for oral evidence on Account No. 1016482974. Pursuant to this order, the Appellant called two witnesses who testified as DW1 and DW2 respectively.
DW1 was one Sani Usman. SANI USMAN who had earlier deposed to the Further and Better Affidavit. He testified inter alia that sometime in 2012, the Appellant was appointed by the Ministry of Police Affairs as one of the Banks to participate in the e-payment system of the salaries of the personnel of the Nigerian Police Force. In alliance with Puzzles Group Ltd. and E-Transact, a Corporate Software was created to ensure that once money comes in the software would automatically disburse the money to the affected beneficiaries. However, to achieve this, the Corporate Holding Account was created to serve as an interface between the Appellant. E-Transact and the Ministry of Police Affairs, but the Account is owned and managed by the Appellant. The account is neither a mandate-based account nor is an account into which could be paid in by anyone or withdrawn by any one directly. It is a system-based one but later Puzzle Group secured a mandate from Bauchi State Government and the same Corporate Holding Account was also used for that purpose. However, since 2015 when the Treasury Single Account was introduced by the Federal Government of Nigeria, the Nigeria Police has never made use of the Corporate Holding Account again and there is no money belonging to the Nigeria Police in the said account. See pages 105 – 107 of the Record of Appeal.
DW2, was one Emeka Elele, Vice President Puzzles Group Ltd. He was a subpoenaed witness and he testified inter alia that some years back, Puzzles Group Ltd. E Transact Plc and Ministry of Police Affairs signed an agreement to offer electronic transaction to them and Puzzles Group was also appointed as Consultants by the Ministry of Police Affairs. Their work led to a decentralized payment system and the Ministry of Police Affairs appointed seven banks to supervise the payment but the system could not take off until 2012 when Intercontinental Bank merged with Access Bank and with the vacancy created by Intercontinental Bank, the Appellant was appointed by the Ministry of Police Affairs, and they were required to have payable and withholding Accounts owned by the Appellant but Puzzles Group Ltd is not a signatory to the said withholding Account. See pages 108 -109 of the Record of Appeal.
It was on the strength of the affidavit and further affidavit evidence of the Appellant and the earlier affidavit of the 1st Respondent in support of the application for Garnishee Order Nisi that the lower Court had in its ruling delivered on 8/5/2017 made the Garnishee Order Absolute, holding and stating inter alia thus:
“In the instant ease, having carefully studied the processes filed by the judgment Creditor and the affidavit to show cause and the better and further affidavit of the Garnishee, and the oral testimonies of witnesses called by the Garnishee, I came to the conclusion that the sum of N272, 515,220.12 in account 1016482974 in the name of ‘’Corporate Holding Account” belongs to the Judgment Debtors. The Garnishee, by their affidavit evidence and evidence of the two witnesses failed to show that the sum in the account belongs to somebody else or there is a lien or a third – party interest in the amount. The averment of the Garnishee at paragraph 6 of the further and better affidavit is devoid of supportive particulars and it appears, the Garnishee’s intention is only to shield the moneys of the Judgment Debtors … In the final analysis of the affidavit evidence of the Garnishee and the evidence of the two witnesses called by the Garnishee, it is crystal clear that the money in account No. 1016482974 titled “Corporate Holding Account” belongs to the Judgment Debtors. And what is important in Garnishee proceedings is that the money’s to be Garnisheed is that of the Judgment Debtors… In conclusion, based on the facts, affidavit evidence and oral testimonies given before me, I have no option than to make the Garnishee order Nisi absolute. Accordingly, the Garnishee Order Nisi is hereby made absolute and that is the decision of the Court. See pages 36 – 56 of the Record of Appeal.”
My Lords, the sole issue before the lower Court was whether or not the Appellant showed cause why the Garnishee Order Nisi should not be made Absolute? The lower Court held that the Appellant failed to show cause why Garnishee Order Nisi should not be made Absolute and therefore, proceeded to make the Garnishee Order Nisi Absolute against the Appellant. The crux of the issues before us is simply whether or not the lower Court was right in its findings and decision that the Appellant did not discharge the onus to show that Account No. 1016482974. tilled ’Corporate Holding Account’ with a credit balance of N272. 515,220.12 does not belong to the 2nd – 3rd Respondents?
The 2nd – 3rd Respondents/Judgment Debtors did not file any brief and had also not urged anything at the hearing of this appeal and that is understandably so as in law he is but a mere passive or nominal party in a Garnishee proceeding, which is strictly between the Ganishor/Judgment Creditor and the Garnishee. See Section 83(1) of the Sherriff and Civil Process Act. See also Gwede V. Delta State House of Assembly (2019) LPELR – 47441 (SC) AT pp. 38 – 39, CBN V. Interstella Communications Ltd & Ors (2017) LPELR – 43940 (SC) AT p. 60, Wema Bank V. Brasterm Sterr Nig Ltd. (2012) All FWLR (Pt. 624) 107 AT pp. 111-112.
In considering the question whether or not the Appellant made out or showed cause why the Garnishee Order Nisi ought not to have been made absolute by the lower Court. I think and deem it apposite to consider the relevant provisions of the law governing Garnishee proceedings and the onus placed on a Garnishee ordered to show cause by a Court.
Now by Section 83 of the Sheriff and Civil Process Act, it is provided thus:
“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 of his legal practitioners that judgment has been recovered and that it is still unsatisfied 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 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 have obtained such judgment or order the debt due to from him to such debtor or so much thereof as may be sufficient to satisfy the judgment or order together with the costs aforesaid.”
My Lords, a Garnishee proceeding is a very straight, and I dare say uncomplicated, procedure legally approved by law for enforcing a money judgment by the seizure or attachment of the debt due and accruing to the judgment debtor which forms part of his money in the hands of a third party for attachment. Therefore, in law. the onus placed on a Garnishee would only be discharged where it successfully establishes that the account or accounts covered by the Garnishee Order nisi do not exist in its system or if exist, it is in debt and not in credit or that it has a right of set off or lien which are due effective against the customer. See Zenith Bank Plc. V. Chief Godwin Omenaka & Anor (2016) LPELR – 40327(CA) per Sir Biohele Abraham Georgewill JCA. See also LBN Plc. V. Boney Marcus Industries Ltd. (2005) All FWLR (Pt. 278) 1037 pp. 1046 – 1047, Fidelity Bank Plc V. Okwuowulu (2012) LPELR – 8497(CA), Citizens International Bank V. SCOA (Nig.) Ltd. (2006) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1011) 334.
Now in law, a Garnishee Order Absolute being clearly a final Order must not to be made lightly and never in disregard to the facts as placed before a Court by the parties. In other words, where a Garnishee is ordered to show cause had placed before the Court some materials by way of affidavit to show cause, it is incumbent on the Court to carefully consider the facts as furnished before deciding whether or not to make the Order Nisi Absolute, being a final order leaving in essence nothing more to be judicially determined thereafter in order to render such an order effective and capable of execution. See Zenith Bank Plc V. Alhaji Manu Kano & Ors (2016) LPELR- 40335(CA) per Sir Biobele Abraham Georgewill JCA. See also Union Bank of Nigeria Plc. V. Boney Marcus Ind. Ltd & Ors (2005) 13 NWLR (Pt. 943) 654. See also Akinsanya V. United Bank for Africa Ltd (1986) 4 NWLR (Pt. 35) 273, United Bank for Africa Plc. V. Hon Iboro Ekanem & Anor (2009) LPELR 8428 (CA).
I am aware that upon being served with both the Affidavit and further and Better Affidavit of the Appellant on the 1st Respondent, it did not file any Counter-Affidavit or any other Affidavit in response to these affidavits of the Appellant. At the oral hearing before the lower Court too the 1st Respondent did not call any witness but thoroughly cross-examined the witnesses of the Appellant. It was submitted for the Appellant that in the circumstances in which the 1st Respondent had neither challenged nor controverted cither the Affidavit or Oral evidence of the Appellant, it is in law deemed to have admitted these pieces of evidence and the lower Court ought to have acted on the unchallenged evidence to find as fact that the Account in issue does not belong to the 2nd – 3rd Respondents and therefore, cannot be attached in satisfaction of their judgment debts.
Now, it is true in law that Affidavit evidence as well as oral evidence of one party which remained unchallenged and or uncontroverted is deemed to be true and or admitted by the adverse party and can be relied and acted upon by the Court to make appropriate findings of facts and reach proper decisions including the discharge of a Garnishee from a Garnishee Order Nisi or from it being made Absolute, unless the unchallenged evidence is palpably false in themselves. See Zenith Bank Plc V. Chief Godwin Omenaka & Anor (2016) LPELR – 40327 (CA) per Sir Biobele Abraham Georgewill JCA. See also Zenith Bank Plc V. Alhaji Manu Kano & Ors (2016) LPELR – 40335 (CA) per Sir Biobele Abraham Georgewill JCA, Zain (Nig) Ltd V. Ilorin (2013) All FWLR (Pt 681) 1518 at 1552, Mokwe V. Ezeuko (2001) FWLR (Pt. 38) 1290.
However, it is also the law that the mere absence of a counter-affidavit does not ipso-facto amount to a conclusive exercise of a favorable discretion. There is a burden of proof on an Applicant which could only be discharged on the satisfaction to the Court with the material facts placed before it. In other words, an unfettered burden lies on the Applicant’s affidavit to stand or fall on its merit. The presumption therefore, that an unchallenged and un controverted averment in an affidavit is deemed admitted does not hold in all situations. Thus, where averments in an affidavit in support of an application are contradictory or if taken together are not sufficient to sustain the Applicant’s prayers, a counter-affidavit in challenge of such averments would manifestly become unnecessary. So also an affidavit which destroys itself by its manifest contradictions need no counter-affidavit against it. This is because there is no rule of law that makes the tiling of a counter-affidavit to an application a sine qua non in every case, since an application can fail even merely on points of law and for other sundry reasons unconnected with a counter-affidavit. See Attorney General of Ondo State Vs Attorney General of Ekiti State (2001) 17 NWLR (Pt. 743) 706. See also Ejefor V. Okeke (2000) 7 NWLR (Pt. 665) 363, Orunlola V. Adeoye (1995) 6 NWLR (Pt 401) 338 AT p. 353, Bello V. AG Lagos State (2017) 2 NWLR (Pt 1017) 115 AT pp. 136 – 138, Arjay Ltd V. Airline Management Ltd (2003) 14 NSCQR 29 AT p. 35.
When therefore, in law can a piece of evidence be said to be contradictory to another piece of evidence and was the lower Court right when it held from the onset that the depositions in the Affidavit and further Affidavit of the Appellant in the light of the contents of Exhibit A were contradictory and would therefore require some explanation from the Appellant in its’ efforts to show cause why the Garnishee Order Nisi should not be made Absolute against it?
In law, a piece of evidence is said or taken to be contradictory to another when it asserts or affirms the opposite of what the other asserts. Put in another way one piece of evidence contradicts another piece of evidence when it says the opposite of what the other evidence says not just on any and any point but on a material point. Thus, where there are material contradictions in the evidence adduced by a party, the Court is enjoined to reject the entire evidence as it cannot pick or choose which of the conflicting versions to follow. See Taiwo V. Ogundele (2012) LPELR – 7803 (SC). See also Zakirai V. Muhammed (2017) LPELR – 42349 (SC), Kayilli V. Yilbuk & Ors (2015) LPELR – 24323 (SC), Makaan V. Hangem & Ors (2018) LPELR – 44401 (CA).
Now, before the lower Court, there have been several versions of the facts relied upon by the Appellant in its efforts to show cause, first version, in the Affidavit to show cause, it stated categorically, despite the mere play at semantics being employed by learned counsel to explain away what the Appellant staled therein, that apart from the three Accounts, including the Account in issue, the 2nd – 3rd Respondents had no other Accounts with the Appellant. Second version, in the further and Better Affidavit, it now stated that the account in issue does not belong to the 2nd – 3rd Respondents but rather belongs to the Appellant. Not done yet, the third version, in the oral testimony of the DW1, he admitted under the intense heat of cross-examination, when men and women are sometimes made to search their souls and say the truth, he admitted that the money of funds of the 2nd – 3rd Respondent are paid into the said account and from there they are taken out electronically to pay the salaries of Police personnel. DW1 admitted unequivocally that the Garnisheed Account is an account where after receiving money into the Police mandate account, they move the salary into the suspense account for Puzzle Group to use their corporate software to pay the Police personnel salaries at once and that the name of the Suspense account is Corporate Holding Account. See pages 106 of the Record of Appeal.
My Lords, the above pieces of evidence alone coming from the Appellant’s own staff and star witness was enough, since there was neither any need for corroboration nor for a horde of witnesses, to establish the fact that the monies or funds of the Judgment Debtors were being paid into the said account from where it is paid out by Puzzle Group to pay the salaries of Police personnel. So, is there any law that an account into which it is established or admitted that a judgment debtor’s fund or money is paid, and which has not been shown to be a joint account, must be the Judgment debtor’s own account before the money in it belonging to the Judgment debtor can be Garnisheed? I think not and I know of no such law.
In law, statement whether oral or written made by a party to a Court proceeding and which statement is adverse to his case or interest is admissible in the proceeding as evidence of the truth of the facts asserted in the statement, and the Court can safely act on such an admission by a witness to a party, particularly when it is made under oath. At any rate, it has always been the law from antiquity that what is admitted need no further proof, and therefore, one party can rely on the positive evidence of the other party that supports his ease to establish his ease. See Jinadu V. Esurumbi – Aro(2005)14 NWLR (Pt. 944) 142. See also Seismograph Services Nig. Ltd V. Eyuafe (1976) 9-10 SC 135, Okonkwo V. Ogbogu (1996) 37 LRCN 589, Iheanacho V. Chigere (2004) 48 WRN I.
The DW1 who had in one breadth in his further and Better affidavit stated on oath that the Garnisheed account as well as the funds therein belonged to the Appellant, which was merely clearly to contradict the earlier Affidavit of the Appellant deposed by one Dele that the said Garnisheed account belongs to the Police, summersaulted again when he unequivocally admitted that the said Garnisheed account in one into which Police funds are being paid into before they are removed for payment electronically of the salaries of Police personnel. In law, such a witness is a slippery witness. He is neither reliable nor consistent, and therefore, no Court, worth its name, would take it serious or credit him with any credibility.
The lower Court took his evidence of denial of the fact of the 2nd – 3rd Respondents’ ownership of the Garnisheed account with a pinch of salt and it was in my finding, perfectly right for the lower Court to do so. It follows therefore, both the DW1’s further and Belter Affidavit as well as his oral evidence which conflicted violently and irreconcilably with the very first affidavit to show cause as to who owns the Garnisheed account were of no probative value and the lower Court was right to have rejected both of them and rather relied on the earlier affidavit to show cause in which the said Garnisheed account was admitted to belong to the Police. This finding cannot in any legal way be faulted by this Court.
Consistency is one of the signposts of truth. Thus, both the parties and their witnesses and I make bold to say even the Courts, must all endeavour to be consistent at all times. See Governor of Lagos State & Ors V. Ohaigo (Nig) Ltd (2018) LPELR – 45552 (CA) per Sir Biobele Abraham Georgewill JCA. It does appear to me that in order to give the Garnisheed Account a coloration of a joint account, it was contended for the Appellant that the said Garnisheed Account was also being used by other customers, including Bauchi Stale Government and that one Puzzle Group won a contract in 2015 from Bauchi Slate Government to pay Bauchi State workers from the same account managed by Puzzle Group. Yet, there was nothing to show that the said account was the same with what was created in Bauchi for payment of the Bauchi worker’s salaries. There was on the contrary the evidence of DW1 that this same account is neither a mandate-based account nor an account into which any customer could pay money or withdraw money from directly but under cross-examination, this same DW1 agreed that indeed there are mandates for the account but that he did not have the mandate form with him in Court. indeed, it is a thing of wonder how the suspense account belonging entirely to the Appellant had become again an account managed by Puzzle Group to also pay salaries of workers of Bauch Slate Government, when DW2 had stated in his evidence that Puzzle Group is not a signatory to the said account. Pray, how does a non-signatory manage an account! All these pieces of evidence point only to one basic fact, namely that the Garnisheed Account belongs not to any other person or institution but to the 2nd – 3rd Respondents/judgment debtors as was confessed to by the DW1 under his cross-examination and as also deposed to unequivocally in the Affidavit to show cause that the said Garnisheed account belong to the 1st – 2nd Respondent judgment debtors and none other.
My Lords, I find the contention by the learned counsel to the Appellant that because the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission investigated Petitions against the Appellant on the ownership of the said account and gave them a clean bill of health that the monies in the account does not belong to the 2nd – 3rd Respondents and that it is a notorious fact that funds belonging to the 2nd – 3rd Respondents have been moved to the TSA and I have asked myself two things, namely: how notorious was the fact of movement of the money belonging to the Police to the TSA and was the fact of the said movement of the funds of the Police to TSA proved merely by the notoriety or was any evidence, oral and documentary, led in proof of this assertion for which the lower Court ought to have held that the Appellant discharged the onus that both the Garnisheed account and the funds paid into it belonged not to the 2nd – 3rd Respondents but rather to the Appellant? I think not!
It appears to me and I so hold that there was not even an iota of evidence before the lower Court that the funds belonging to the Police had been moved to the TSA from the Garnisheed Account or that the EFCC investigated any Petitions, none of which was placed before the lower Court, and therefore, that the said Garnisheed Account belonged to the Appellant and not to the 2nd – 3rd Respondents/judgment debtors as contended by the learned counsel for the Appellant. It was therefore, in my view, most impracticable for the lower Court to have held, as was urged upon us by the learned counsel for the Appellant, that the Appellant had discharged the onus to prove that both the Garnisheed Account as well as the money paid into it belonged to Appellant and not to the 2nd – 3rd Respondents/judgment debtors and therefore, not subject to a Garnishee Order Absolute. The Appellant failed woefully to discharge this onus as was rather rightly held by the lower Court. In law, matters of fact of these nature are not proved merely by ipsi – dixit, where documentary evidence in addition to oral evidence was essential. See Asafa Ltd V. Alraine Ltd (2002) 5 SC 1. See also Kano V. Oyelakin (1993)3 NWLR (Pt. 232) 399.
It is my finding therefore, and I so firmly hold that the Appellant failed woefully, on irreconcilably contradictory evidence led by it, to prove that both the Garnisheed account as well as the funds paid into it do not belong to the 2nd – 3rd Respondents but to the Appellant. In the circumstances therefore, the lower Court was right, when having found as fact that the Garnisheed Account and the funds therein belonged to the Police and not to the Appellant, it proceeded to make the Garnishee Order Nisi Absolute.
I have for myself considered the entirety of the Appellant’s affidavit and further and better affidavit as well as the evidence of DW1 and DW2 in the light of Exhibit A relied upon by the Appellant, and I find that save the bare assertion as to the electronic movement of money belonging to the Police from the Garnisheed Account for the purpose of payment of salaries of Police personnel, no single documentary Exhibits were placed before the Court below on such a complicated banking mechanism by the Appellant and Puzzle Group, whose staff DW2 did not also provide any such documentary Exhibits in support of such an intricate banking procedure. This alone cast grave doubts on the authenticity and truth of the tales by moon light stories of the Appellant. SeeUnity Bank Plc. V. Engr. Emmanuel Adeleke (2021) LPELR-54549 (CA) per Sir Biobele Abraham Georgcwill JCA. See also Live Stock Feeds Plc. V. Funtua (2005) FWLR (Pt. 286) 753.
In law, the fables told by the Appellant are not the kind of evidence needed to sway a Court of law’ to reach the conclusion that good cause has been shown why a Garnishee Order Nisi should not be made absolute.
It is settled that the amount at the judgment debtor’s credit in his bank account is the property of the judgment debtor and it constitutes a debt, with the bank being the person indebted. The credit balance constitutes a debt payable by the bank to the customer on demand and as such, it can be attached by garnishee proceedings. See Central Bank of Nigeria Vs Auto Import Export (2013) 2 NWLR (Pt. 1337) 80.
By Section 87 of the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act which stipulates what procedure to be adopted by the trial Court, where liability for the judgment debt is disputed by the Garnishee, the procedure to be adopted by the Court is limited to either call for trial of the case or to refer the matter to a referee. See Central Bank of Nigeria V Hydro Air Property Ltd (2014) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1434) 482, where the proper procedure was fully explained inter alia thus:
“Garnishee proceeding is a unique procedure which provides a clear and fair procedure to be followed in resolution of disputed liability. Section 87 of the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act provides … Instead of trying to resolve the disputed liability based on conflicting affidavit evidence made by the parties herein and placing reliance on materials not put before the Court in garnishee proceedings, the trial Court should have adopted the procedure provided in Section 87 above to determine the liability of the Appellant. To this end, he should have cither allowed the parties call oral evidence to resolve the disputed areas or allowed them to cross-examine the deponents of the respective affidavits of the parties confronting them with whatever documentary evidence that are available which will reveal the true state of facts and enable make up his mind on the liability or otherwise of the Appellant.”
This is what the lower Court did and in my view, quite rightly too.
I now come to the issue of whether or not the lower Court was right when it ordered the Appellant to produce the cheques and other instruments with which the Garnisheed Account was being operated. I see a zeal in the lower Court to get to the root of the matter, yet it was a zeal not in sync with the requirements of the law in Garnishee proceedings, in which there is no provision empowering the lower Court, in a Garnishee proceeding, to order the Garnishee to produce Cheques, mandate form, instruments etc., of the Garnisheed account. I therefore find the following statement of law by the lower Court disturbing as not representing the correct position of the law in Garnishee proceedings and I felt it should be corrected. The lower Court had stated inter alia thus:
“In the instant case, the Garnishee having failed to produce the particulars of the account opening of Exhibit A and the cheques used as per Exhibit A, I hold the view and the presumption is that if the documents are produced for the inspection of the Court, the evidence would be unfavorable to the Garnishee and I so hold.”
My Lords, where a Garnishee appears in Court in obedience to the Garnishee Order Nisi and files an affidavit to show cause disputing liability, the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act by Section 87 thereof, provides what should happen thus:
“If a 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 liability be tried or determined in any manner in which any issue or question in any proceedings may be tried or determined, or may refer the matter to a referee.”
The above provision has been interpreted by the Courts as containing the options available to a trial Court in resolving a situation where a garnishee disputes liability. The position of case law seems to be where the affidavit evidence of the Garnishee discloses cither a prima facie case or some seriously conflicting facts to the affidavit evidence of the Garnishor in support of the Garnishee Order Nisi, then the Court must call for oral evidence to resolve the conflict in the evidence, but it cannot go outside the provisions of the law governing Garnishee proceedings to Order the Garnishee to produce particulars, mandate forms etc. of the Garnisheed Accounts. This was exactly what the lower Court did erroneously and on the strength of which it held that the Appellant was guilty of withholding of evidence as above. See Fidelity Bank Plc V. Samaila Ahmadu Gumau & Anor (2019) LPELR – 47068(CA). See also Skye Bank Plc Vs Colombara & Anor (2014) LPELR 22641(CA), Access Bank Pic Vs Adewusi (2017) LPELR 43495(CA), First Bank of Nigeria Plc Vs Okon (2017) LPELR 43530(CA), Heritage Bank Ltd V. Interlagos Oil Ltd (2018) LPELR 44801 (CA), First Bank of Nigeria Plc Vs Yegwa(2018) LPELR 45997(CA).
My Lords, Garnishee proceeding is targeted not at just the account or holder of an account but at the funds in the account in the custody of the Garnishee. Thus, even where the account holder or account is in a different name but the money in the account belongs to the judgment debtor, such funds will be subject to a Garnishee Order Nisi and Absolute as the case may be. So, even the arguments that the Garnisheed Account belonged to the Appellant alone without proof that the funds in the said account does not belong to the Judgment debtors would not be sufficient for the Appellant to discharge the onus placed on it in a Garnishee proceeding. This underscores the very possible and even prevailing attitude of persons, Garnishees who are wont to hiding the funds of judgment debtors with a view to keeping away such funds from being attached in satisfaction of the judgment debts of a judgment debtor.
Now, looking at the affidavit to show cause and the shenanigans that followed by way of further and Better Affidavit, it could easily be seen, and I so hold, that all the struggles by the Appellant was aimed not at securing its own funds, which belongs to its innocent customers, away from being attached in satisfaction of the judgment debts of the 2nd – 3rd Respondents, which would have been a noble deed, but rather to keep away money and funds belonging to the 2nd – 3rd Respondents, adjudged judgment debtors, from being attached in satisfaction of their just judgment debts due payable to the 1st Respondent, an ignoble deed, which cannot and must not be allowed to see the light of the day as was rightly done by the lower Court. Indeed, the point must be made, over and over again, that it is not the duty of a Garnishee to play the role of the devil’s advocate in a Garnishee proceeding! See Union Bank Nigeria V. Bonney Marcus Ind Ltd & Ors (2005) 13 NWLR (Pt. 943) 654. See also ECO Bank (Nig) Plc V. Mbanefo & Bros Ltd (2014) LPELR – 41106 (CA), Total Upstream Nigeria Ltd V. DIC Ltd (2015) LPELR 25388 (CA), Oceanic Bank Plc V. Oladepo (2012) LPELR – 19670 (CA), Skye Bank Plc V. Dauda & Ors (2014) LPELR – 23731 (CA), CBN V. Interstella Comm. Ltd (2018) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1648) 294, GTB Plc V. Innoson Nig. Ltd (2017) 5 SC (Pl. 1) 68.
In the light of all, I have found and stated as above. I hereby resolve issues one, two and three for determination against the Appellant in favour of the 1st Respondent, while I resolve issue four for determination in favour of the Appellant against the 1st Respondent.
On the whole therefore, having resolved issues one, two and three for determination against the Appellant in favour of the 1st Respondent, notwithstanding the resolution of issue four for determination in favour of the Appellant against the 1st Respondent.
I hold that the appeal lacks merit and is thus liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, this appeal is hereby so dismissed.
In the result, the ruling of the High Court of Federal Capital Territory. Abuja Coram: D Z. Senchi J., in Suit No. FCT/HC/M/6230/2016: Enugo Petroleum Limited & Ors V. United Bank For Africa Plc delivered on 8/5/2017, in which the Garnishee Order Nisi issued on 26/5/2016 against the Appellant in favour of the 1st Respondent was made Absolute, is hereby affirmed.
There shall be no order as to cost.
MOHAMMED MUSTAPHA, J.C.A.: I had the privilege of reading a copy of the draft judgment just delivered by my learned brother, SIR BIOBELE ABRAHAM GEORGEWILL, JCA.
I agree with the reasons adduced in the lead judgment in dismissing the appeal.
I too dismiss the appeal for lacking in merit and affirm the ruling of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja delivered on 8/5/2017.
BATURE ISAH GAFAI, J.C.A.: I have had a preview of the judgment delivered by my learned brother, Sir Biobele Abraham Georgewill, JCA. I agree with and adopt as mine the reasonings and conclusion expressed in the leading judgment. Accordingly, I too find the appeal unmeritorious and is hereby dismissed by me too.
Appearances:
Uchenna Okafor, Esq. For Appellant(s)
Obi C. Nwakor, Esq. – for 1st Respondent For Respondent(s)
