LawCare Nigeria

Nigeria Legal Information & Law Reports

UBA PLC v. HALILU & ANOR (2022)

UBA PLC v. HALILU & ANOR

(2022)LCN/16529(CA)

In the Court of Appeal

(KANO JUDICIAL DIVISION)

On Friday, March 18, 2022

CA/K/620/2018

Before Our Lordships:

Ita George Mbaba Justice of the Court of Appeal

Boloukuromo Moses Ugo Justice of the Court of Appeal

Abubakar Muazu Lamido Justice of the Court of Appeal

Between

UNITED BANK FOR AFRICA PLC APPELANT(S)

And

1. ALHAJI SULAIMAN I. HALILU 2. INDEPENDENT NATIONAL ELECTORAL COMMISSION RESPONDENT(S)

 

RATIO

WHETHER OR NOT A GARNISHEE ORDER ABSOLUTE IS A FINAL DECISION OF COURT

​The law is trite, that a Garnishee Order Absolute, is itself, a final decision of Court, amounting to execution of the Judgment of Court, enforced by it. And being a final judgment, the trial Court becomes functus officio, upon delivery of the judgment and cannot be dragged back, to consider the matter again, on the excuse that a party’s Counsel made a mistake. That sounds quite ridiculous and infantile, in my view. See the case of Acholonu & Ors Vs Ohiri (2016) LPELR – 40445 CA, where it was held:
“When a Suit is dismissed, the same is completely dealt with and matters therein revert to the archives of the Court. The Court that handled it, becomes functus officio on the matter, except where application is brought for stay of the execution or for execution of decision, thereof. See the case of Cross Country Ltd Vs A.G. Moeller Itd (2014) LPELR – 24091 (CA) and Nwaosu and Ors Vs HFP Engineering Nigeria Ltd (2014) LPELR – 23197 CA, where this Court held: “Once an issue has been raised and determined by the Court between the litigating parties, the Court becomes functus officio to either direct or order parties to reopen the same issue before it for re-litigation. See Nnajiofor Vs Ukonu (1985) 2 NWLR (pt.9) 686 at 688; John Andy & Sons & Co Ltd Vs National Cereals Research Institute (1997) 3 NWLR (pt.491) 1. 
PER MBABA, J.C.A.

THE POSITION OF LAW ON WHEN A COURT IS SAID TO BE FUNCTUS OFFICIO

In Sanusi Vs Ayoola (1992) 11 – 12 SCNJ 142 – the Supreme Court, held: “There is the well settled elementary and fundamental principle of law that a Court, on disposing of a case before it, renders itself functus officio. It ceases to have jurisdiction in respect of such case.” See also the case of Kayode Vs Abdulfatai (2013) 33 WRN 145 at 178 and Khalid Vs Ismail(2013) LPELR – 22325 (CA), where it was stated: “…I hold that the trial Court was right to refuse the application to set aside the judgment of 23/4/12, as it had become functus officio in that case. See Remawa Vs NACB LTD (2007) 2 NWLR (pt.1017) 155, where this Court said: “Generally speaking, when a trial Court has given judgment in a case on the merit, that Court is functus officio in relation to the judgment it pronounced. It cannot, ordinarily, reopen the case for a fresh hearing. A party dissatisfied with the judgment can only appeal against it.”
See also Sanusi Vs Ayoola & Ors (1992) LPELR – 3009 (SC), where it was held:
“There is the well settled elementary and fundamental principle of law that a Court on disposing of a cause before it renders itself functus officio. It ceases to have jurisdiction in respect of such case – See Ekerele v. Eke (1925) 6 NLR, 118, Akinyede v. The Appraiser (1971) 1 All NLR, 162. It cannot assume the status of an appellate Court over its own decision, except there is statutory power to do so. – See Fritz v. Hobson (1880) 14 Ch.D.542. The power of the Court to do so can only be statutory and in this case, it is provided in Order 32 Rule 4 (supra).” Per KARIBI-WHYTE, JSC
And the case of Ihedioha & Anor Vs Okorocha & Ors (2015) LPELR – 40837 (SC), where my Lord, Okoro, JSC, held:
“It is trite that once an issue or issues have been raised and determined by the Court, between the litigating parties, the Court becomes functus officio to either direct or allow the parties to re-open the same issues before it for relitigation. See John Andy Sons & Co. Ltd V. National Cereals Research Institute (1997) 3 NWLR (Pt. 491) 1, Nnajiofor V. Ukonu (1985) 2 NWLR (Pt. 9) 686 at 688, Chief Ozo Nwankwo Alor & Anor. V. Christopher Ngene & Ors (2007) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1062) 163.”
PER MBABA, J.C.A.

ITA GEORGE MBABA, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): Appellant filed this Appeal against the decision of the Federal High Court, Kano in Suit No. FHC/KN/CS/33/2011, delivered on 19th November, 2018 by Hon. Justice A.L. Allagoa, wherein the learned trial Judge refused to set aside the Garnishee Order Absolute it earlier entered on 5/11/2018 against Appellant – as Applicant.

The Application was brought on two grounds, namely:
(a) That the Applicant’s Counsel erroneously disclosed that Appellant has enough funds in its custody to satisfy the judgment debt.
(b) That the Appellant has only the sum of N1,120,906.95 belonging to the judgment debtor.

The Judgment Debtor was the 2nd Respondent and the Judgment Creditor, the 1st Respondent. Appellant was the Garnishee. It was the Judgment Creditor who initiated the garnishee proceedings against the Appellant (as 3rd Garnishee) and others, and the Judgment Debtor.

​After hearing the arguments of the parties and reviewing the case presented by the Applicant (Appellant herein), the Learned trial Judge refused to believe the alleged mistake of Counsel, given the irreconcilable discrepancies or the contradictions in the affidavit, filed by the Applicant, and the fact that Appellant (Applicant) had failed or refused to show the Bank Statement of the Judgment Debtor, on the state of affairs in the Debtor’s account No. 1005393548, to show that the Judgment Debtor in fact, had no sufficient money in the account, as at 11/10/2018, when the Order Nisi was made, to satisfy the judgment debt. 

Appellant filed a Further Amended Notice of Appeal on 6/5/2019 to host this Appeal, disclosing two Grounds of Appeal. Appellant filed Amended Brief of Argument on 17/1/2022, which was deemed duly filed on 19/1/2022, the day this Appeal was heard.

Appellant distilled two Issues for the determination of the Appeal, as follows:
(1) Whether in the circumstances of this case, the Appellant is liable to explain that the admission upon which the order absolute was made was erroneous or a mistake of Counsel? (Ground 1)
(2) Whether the trial Judge was right in refusing to set aside the order absolute made on the 5th November, 2018? (Ground 2)

The 1st Respondent filed his brief of argument on 5/10/2020, which was deemed duly filed on 7/10/2021. (The 1st Respondent did not deem it necessary to make consequential amendment at the time of hearing the Appeal, on 19/1/2022). The 1st Respondent adopted the 2nd Issue by the Appellant but modified the 1st Issue, as follows:
Whether having regard to the law and on record, the Appellant has made out a case (of mistake of Counsel or otherwise) to warrant the setting aside of the Garnishee Order Absolute made on the 5th November, 2018?

The 2nd Respondent (Judgment Debtor) filed no brief, but Counsel had filed a Reply Brief on 21/10/2021.

​Arguing the Appeal, Appellant’s Counsel, Segun Olabode, Esq on Issue 1, referred us to the Motion Ex-parte filed by the 1st Respondent as Judgment Creditor at the lower Court, as well as the Order Nisi made by the Court, and submitted that the 3rd Garnishee at the trial Court was served with the Order Nisi on 12/10/2018; that the Appellant’s affidavit to show cause (as 3rd Garnishee) was filed on 25/10/2018. Counsel said that the Garnishee Order Absolute was made on the admission of the Appellant (then 3rd Garnishee), based on its affidavit filed by its Solicitor, that by the Motion on Notice filed by the Appellant on 5th November, 2018 praying for order to set aside the Garnishee Order Absolute, Appellant had stated that its Counsel was in error, or made a mistake to say that the 2nd Respondent had sufficient funds in its account with the Appellant, to satisfy the judgment debt; that though the 1st Respondent (Judgment Creditor) had filed a Counter affidavit to oppose the Motion of 5th November, 2018, a careful reading of the Appellant’s Motion to set aside the Garnishee Order Absolute, the Counter affidavit and the Ruling of the Court thereof, would show that the Garnishee Order Absolute made by the trial Court, was made on the basis of the admission in the Appellant’s affidavit to show cause, filed by its Solicitors; that the Solicitors; later realized that the admission was made in error. He argued that by law, admissions are not conclusive proof of the matter admitted, and relied on Section 27 of the Evidence Act. He also relied on the case of Victabio Ventures Ltd Vs W. Van Der Zwan & Z.N.B. V. (2009) ALL FWLR (Pt.470) 756 at 781, which states:
“Admissions are therefore no estoppel and are not conclusive against a party against whom they are tendered. The party has the right to explain the circumstance and show that the admissions were due to misconception or ignorance of the real facts or other circumstances which sufficiently explain them.”

Counsel also relied on the case of Nigerian Bank for Commerce and Industry Vs Integrated Gas (Nig) Ltd (2005) ALL FWLR (Pt.250) 1 at 25.

Counsel argued that the information by the Appellant’s Solicitors in the affidavit to show cause, was founded on the information given to the Chamber Litigation Secretary, Lekan Bello Aghogbo Eze and not from his (Lekan Bello) personal knowledge, that where admission is not based on personal knowledge of the matter of the facts admitted, such admission can hardly be of any value. He relied on the case of Seismograph Service (Nig) Ltd Vs Eyuafe (1976) 9 – 10 SC 86 at 91.

Counsel said that the said admission was a mere assertion, without the Statement of Account of the Judgment Debtor, to show the exact amount in the Account. He relied on Section 123 of the Evidence Act, for the exercise of the discretion of the Court in such circumstances, and also relied on authorities, including Narindex Trust Ltd Vs Nigerian Inter-Continental Merchant Bank Ltd (2001) FWLR (Pt.49) 1546 at 1558; Nigerian Bottling Co. Plc Vs Oboh (2000) FWLR (Pt.2379 at 2392; CBN Vs Hydro Air PTY Ltd (2015) ALL FWLR (Pt.765) 227 at 259; UBA Ltd Vs Societe Generale Bank Ltd (1996) 10 NWLR (Pt.478) 381 at 390.

On Issue 2, whether the learned trial Judge was right to refuse to set aside the Garnishee Order Absolute, Counsel answered in the negative. He relied on the arguments he made on Issue 1. He conceded that the Order Absolute was a final Judgment, but argued that the trial Court still had inherent jurisdiction to set it aside under certain circumstances, like when argued that the Court was mislead into giving judgment under a mistaken belief, that the parties consented to it. He relied on the case of Tomtec Nig. Ltd Vs FHA (2010) ALL FWLR (Pt.509) 400 at 420 – 421; Mark Vs Eke (2004) ALL FWLR (Pt.200) 1455; Bessoy Ltd Vs Honey Legon (Nig) Ltd (2010) ALL FWLR (Pt.503) 1580 at 1596, and on Jaiz Bank Plc Vs GTB & Ors, Appeal No. CA/K/188/2014, delivered on 6/11/2017. He urged us to allow the Appeal and set aside the Garnishee Order Absolute.

Responding, Mallam Mohammed S. Shuaib, Esq, who settled the brief of 1st Respondent, said that having regard to the law and the evidence on record, Appellant had not made out any case, whether of mistake of Counsel or otherwise to warrant the setting aside of the Garnishee Order Absolute; he said that the trial Court was right to refuse the application to set aside the Order.

Counsel admitted that generally, the Court does not visit the sins, inadvertence, fault or mistake of Counsel, on a litigant, but said that there are exceptions to that general rule, and relied on Erinfolabi Vs Oke (1995) 5 NWLR (Pt.395) 296 at 303; Lenas Fibreglass Ltd Vs Furtado (1997) 5 NWLR (Pt.504) 220.

Counsel said that the trial Court had duly considered the facts, evidence and arguments before it, before refusing the application and he referred us to the ruling of the trial Court – quoted extensively, that there were material contradictions and discrepancies in the evidence adduced by Appellant, and that Appellant did not also produce the Statement of account of 2nd Respondent, as at the date of the Order Nisi. Counsel relied on the case of Zakirai Vs Mohammed (2017) 17 NWLR (Pt.1594) 181 at 243, on the effect of material contradictions. Counsel also relied on the case of Mosheshe General Merchant Ltd Vs Nigerian Steel Products Ltd (1987) 2 NWLR (Pt.55) 110 on the powers of Counsel in the conduct of a case for his client; that he can even compromise the case; can submit to judgment, and even filibuster, if necessary, as he conducts the case. He said that the only thing open to the litigant in the circumstance is to withdraw instructions from the Counsel (that is, withdraw the case from him), if not comfortable in the way the Counsel conducts the case; he added that, if Counsel was negligently, to sue the Counsel, in tort for professional negligence.

Counsel however said that Appellant did not raise any appeal against the vital findings of the trial Court, expressed in the Ruling; that there were material contradictions in the evidence and Appellant did not produce the Statement of Account of 2nd Respondent to show the status of the account of the Judgment Debtor. He relied on the case of Trade Bank Vs Pharmatex (2020) 8 NWLR (Pt.1725) 124 at 162; Inakoju Vs Adeleke ​(2007) NWLR (Pt.1025) 423.

Counsel added that Appellant’s argument, in paragraph 4.12 – 4.16 and 4.31 of the Appellant’s Brief were on fresh Issues, which were not before the Lower Court, and Appellant needed the leave of this Court to raise them as fresh Issues. He relied on FCDA Vs Unique Future Leaders Int’l Ltd (2014) 17 NWLR (Pt.1436) 213.

Counsel also stated that the said Mr. Aghogho Eze, who supplied the information with which Appellant’s Solicitors anchored the admission in the affidavit to show cause, was a staff of Appellant, and it is unimaginable that he was not in a position to know the facts stated in paragraph 4(c) of the Affidavit to show cause. He said that the law is settled, that evidence given on oath by a party is admissible against that party. He relied on Osemwingie Vs Osemwingie (2012) LPELR – 19790; Adeyeye Vs Ajiboye (1987) 1 SCNJ 13;Midford Edosomwan Vs Ogbefun (1996) 4 SCNJ 21 at 36; Fagunwa Vs Adibi (2004) 7 SCNJ 322.

Counsel also relied on the case of Zenith Bank Vs Igbokwe & Anor (2013) LPELR – 2197 to say that Appellant misconceived the law, as the grounds upon which a Garnishee Order Absolute can be set aside, are quite limited; that the only reason to do so is, if evidence on record is that the garnishee was not properly, personally, served with the garnishee order nisi to show cause; that the other acceptable reason is, if in the consideration of the processes filed by the garnishee to show cause, the trial Judge used wrong legal consideration to arrive at the decision to make the order absolute.

Counsel also relied on Jaiz Bank Plc Vs Guarranty Trust Bank Plc (supra); Esika Vs Medolu (supra); Eromosele Vs Wermer (supra) and Zakirai Vs Mohammed (supra).

On Issue 2, whether the trial Court was right to refuse to set aside the Garnishee Order Absolute, Counsel answered in the affirmative and relied on the case of UBN Plc Vs Boney Marcus Ind. Ltd & Ors (2005) LPELR – 3394 SC, where it was held:
“Once the Order absolute is made, there would be nothing left before the Court in the matter. The Court has at that stage, completely, determined the matter between the parties… The Court would be functus officio. There would then be nothing left to be determined by the Court. Counsel also relied on FBN Vs Jacob Agidi Nig. Ltd (2018) LPELR – 44997, where it was held that a judge who decided a matter is precluded from considering the matter again, even if new evidence or argument is presented to him, as the Judge is functus officio in the case. Counsel also founded on Barbedos Ventures Ltd Vs Zamfara State Govt. & Anor (2017) LPELR – 42499 CA, and urged us to dismiss the Appeal.

Appellant’s Reply Brief appears to be a further argument of the Appeal and so is not worth further consideration, as a Reply Brief is not meant to afford Appellant a second chance to improve upon or better his brief of argument. SeeAwosanya Vs Fed Min. of Environment Housing and Urban Dev. (2021) LPELR – 52707 CA; Onwubuya & Ors Vs Ikegbunam (2019) LPELR – 49373 (SC).

RESOLUTION OF ISSUES
I think the relevant issue thrown up for the determination of this Appeal is:
Whether the Learned trial Judge was right to refuse to set aside the Garnishee Order Absolute, not believing Appellant that its Counsel made a mistake, when they said Appellant held sufficient money of the 2nd Respondent to satisfy the Judgment Debtor, as per the Order Nisi of 11/10/2018?

​The facts of the Application at the trial Court was simple, as earlier disclosed, that Appellant’s Solicitors had, in their Counter affidavit to show cause why the Garnishee Order Nisi should not be made absolute, had said in paragraphs 4(a) (b) (c):
(a) “That the 3rd Garnishee (UBA PLC) was served with a garnishee Order Nisi issued by this Honourable Court in the above Suit, directing the 3rd Garnishee (UBA PLC) to appear and show cause why Order Absolute should not be made for payment of the judgment sum owed by the Judgment Debtors among other orders.
(b) That following the service of the said garnishee order nisi, the 3rd garnishee conducted a search of its records and further to which the 3rd garnishee confirmed the 1st Judgment Debtor maintains account No. 1005393548 with the 3rd Garnishee and has sufficient balance to satisfy the Judgment sum of N44,950,000.00 (Bank) (sic) and that the said sum has been set aside awaiting the decision of the Court.
(c) That the 2nd Judgment Debtor does not maintain any account with 3rd Garnishee (bank) and thus does not have the Judgment sum or any other sum belonging to the 2nd Judgment Debtors in its Custody.” (See Page 15 of the Records of Appeal)

The 1st Judgment Debtor in the case was the Independent National Electoral Commission INEC (2nd Respondent herein) and the 2nd Judgment Debtor was Bello Isa Bayero (not a party in this Appeal). Appellant was the 3rd Garnishee in the Garnishee Application. The trial Court had entered judgment for the 1st Respondent (Judgment Creditor), making the Garnishee Order Nisi, Absolute – on 5/11/2018. Appellant had filed an Application that same date, 5/11/2018, seeking the trial Court to set aside the Garnishee Order Absolute, on the grounds that it was a mistake of Counsel, when they said that Appellant had sufficient funds of INEC with them to satisfy the judgment debt. See Paragraph 3(g) of Appellant’s affidavit on Page 129 of the Records of Appeal, which states:
“That the 3rd Garnishee/Applicant Counsel by sheer mistake in the affidavit to show cause of 24th October, 2018 misled this Court into believing that 1st Judgment Debtor has up to the Judgment sum of N44,950,000.00 in its custody, contrary to the instructions received from the 3rd Garnishee/Applicant via mail of 23rd October, 2018.”

Of course, the trial Court did not believe the Appellant and so refused to set aside the Garnishee Order Absolute. The trial Court said:
“My disbelief is based on two reasons:
(1) Whereas the 3rd Garnishee affidavit to show cause dated 25/10/2018, in paragraph 4 thereof, Counsel clearly stated that he received instruction from the 3rd Garnishee, through their legal office (UBA) at their office at 9A, Post Office Road, Kano on the 24th October, 2018 at about 4.15pm on the state of Account No. 1005393548 belonging to the Judgment Debtor. In paragraph 3 of the 3rd Garnishee affidavit in support of their motion to set aside the Order Nisi (sic), they purported that Counsel received the information on the state of the account on 23rd October, 2018, vide email. A copy of the email was attached as “Exhibit A1”.
The discrepancies or contradictions in the above affidavit leaves a lot to be desired and it is inexplicable. 
The only conclusion that can be drawn is that there was no mistake of any sort. The purported mistake is not genuine. Secondly, Exhibit B, attached to the 3rd Garnishee further affidavit, only disclosed the state of the Judgment Debtor’s account as at 28th September, 2018. The Order Nisi was made on 11th October, 2018 and the Order absolute was made on 5th November, 2018. The 3rd Garnishee has therefore failed or refused to show, by Bank Statement, the stage of affairs on the Judgment Debtor’s Account No. 1005393548 maintained with the 3rd Garnishee. There is therefore no basis for the 3rd Garnishee contention that it has not the funds to satisfy the judgment debt, and their claim of mistake of Counsel is therefore not genuine and cannot form the basis upon which the order absolute made by this Honourable Court on the 5th November, 2018 can be set aside. The Motion filed by the 3rd Garnishee seeking to set aside the Order Absolute given by this Honourable Court on the 5th November, 2018 is hereby dismissed.” (See Pages 238 to 239 of the Records of Appeal)

I do not see how I can fault the above findings and decision of the trial Court, especially as Appellant never raised any appeal against those findings and holding. See the case of Opara Vs Dowel-Schlumberger Nig. Ltd & Anor ​(2006) LPELR – 2746 SC, where the Supreme Court held:
“It is also settled law that where a party fails to appeal against a finding of the trial Court or the Court of Appeal, he cannot be heard to question the finding on appeal to the Supreme Court, the essence of an appeal being to have an opportunity to have one’s suit re-examined before a higher Court. In effect the failure of the appellant to appeal against the decision of the trial Court refusing an order of specific performance is that that decision remains binding and conclusive between the parties – see Alakija v. Abdulai (1998) 6 NWLR (Pt. 552) 1 at 4. In Ndiwe v. Okocha (1992) 7 NWLR (Pt. 252) 129 at 139-140 it was held by this Court that where the trial Court makes a finding of fact on a specific issue before it, such an issue should be raised as a substantive ground of appeal by the appellant who is challenging the finding of fact and it cannot be covered under the omnibus ground of appeal.”

​The law is trite, that a Garnishee Order Absolute, is itself, a final decision of Court, amounting to execution of the Judgment of Court, enforced by it. And being a final judgment, the trial Court becomes functus officio, upon delivery of the judgment and cannot be dragged back, to consider the matter again, on the excuse that a party’s Counsel made a mistake. That sounds quite ridiculous and infantile, in my view. See the case of Acholonu & Ors Vs Ohiri (2016) LPELR – 40445 CA, where it was held:
“When a Suit is dismissed, the same is completely dealt with and matters therein revert to the archives of the Court. The Court that handled it, becomes functus officio on the matter, except where application is brought for stay of the execution or for execution of decision, thereof. See the case of Cross Country Ltd Vs A.G. Moeller Itd (2014) LPELR – 24091 (CA) and Nwaosu and Ors Vs HFP Engineering Nigeria Ltd (2014) LPELR – 23197 CA, where this Court held: “Once an issue has been raised and determined by the Court between the litigating parties, the Court becomes functus officio to either direct or order parties to reopen the same issue before it for re-litigation. See Nnajiofor Vs Ukonu (1985) 2 NWLR (pt.9) 686 at 688; John Andy & Sons & Co Ltd Vs National Cereals Research Institute (1997) 3 NWLR (pt.491) 1. In Sanusi Vs Ayoola (1992) 11 – 12 SCNJ 142 – the Supreme Court, held: “There is the well settled elementary and fundamental principle of law that a Court, on disposing of a case before it, renders itself functus officio. It ceases to have jurisdiction in respect of such case.” See also the case of Kayode Vs Abdulfatai (2013) 33 WRN 145 at 178 and Khalid Vs Ismail(2013) LPELR – 22325 (CA), where it was stated: “…I hold that the trial Court was right to refuse the application to set aside the judgment of 23/4/12, as it had become functus officio in that case. See Remawa Vs NACB LTD (2007) 2 NWLR (pt.1017) 155, where this Court said: “Generally speaking, when a trial Court has given judgment in a case on the merit, that Court is functus officio in relation to the judgment it pronounced. It cannot, ordinarily, reopen the case for a fresh hearing. A party dissatisfied with the judgment can only appeal against it.”
See also Sanusi Vs Ayoola & Ors (1992) LPELR – 3009 (SC), where it was held:
“There is the well settled elementary and fundamental principle of law that a Court on disposing of a cause before it renders itself functus officio. It ceases to have jurisdiction in respect of such case – See Ekerele v. Eke (1925) 6 NLR, 118, Akinyede v. The Appraiser (1971) 1 All NLR, 162. It cannot assume the status of an appellate Court over its own decision, except there is statutory power to do so. – See Fritz v. Hobson (1880) 14 Ch.D.542. The power of the Court to do so can only be statutory and in this case, it is provided in Order 32 Rule 4 (supra).” Per KARIBI-WHYTE, JSC
And the case of Ihedioha & Anor Vs Okorocha & Ors (2015) LPELR – 40837 (SC), where my Lord, Okoro, JSC, held:
“It is trite that once an issue or issues have been raised and determined by the Court, between the litigating parties, the Court becomes functus officio to either direct or allow the parties to re-open the same issues before it for relitigation. See John Andy Sons & Co. Ltd V. National Cereals Research Institute (1997) 3 NWLR (Pt. 491) 1, Nnajiofor V. Ukonu (1985) 2 NWLR (Pt. 9) 686 at 688, Chief Ozo Nwankwo Alor & Anor. V. Christopher Ngene & Ors (2007) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1062) 163.”

​It should also be stated, that a Garnishee is not expected, or allowed to canvass any case for the judgment debtor, as if in solidarity with, or as an advocate for the judgment debtor, in protecting the funds of the judgment debtor in its (garnishee’s) custody. See the cases of Oceanic Bank Plc Vs Oladepo & Anor (2012) LPELR – 19670 (CA); and G.T.B. Vs Innoson Nig. Ltd (2017) LPELR – 42368 (SC), where it was held:
“The only duty of a garnishee in garnishee proceedings is to satisfy the Court why the funds in its possession belonging to the judgment debtor should not be garnished to pay the judgment debt. It is not the duty of a garnishee to play the role of advocate for the judgment debtor nor to protect the debtor’s money in its possession. See: Oceanic Bank Plc v. Michael Olusegun Oladepo & Anor. (2012) LPELR – 19670 (CA).” Per KEKERE-EKUN, JSC.

I cannot see any merit in this Appeal and so resolve the Issues against Appellant and dismiss the Appeal, with cost assessed at N100,000.00 (One Hundred Thousand Naira) only, against Appellant, payable to the Respondent. 

BOLOUKUROMO MOSES UGO, J.C.A.: My learned brother ITA MBABA, J. C. A. gave me his lead judgment to read in advance before today. 
I am in agreement with his reasoning and conclusion. I also dismiss this appeal for lack of merit in it. I abide by the order as to costs as contained in the lead judgment. 

ABUBAKAR MU’AZU LAMIDO, J.C.A.: I have had the privilege of reading in draft the judgment delivered by my learned brother ITA G. MBABA, JCA, and I am in complete agreement with the reasoning and conclusion reached that this appeal is without any merit. I too dismiss the appeal and abide by all the consequential orders as contained in the lead judgment.

Appearances:

SEGUN OLABODE, ESQ. For Appellant(s)

MALLAN MOHAMMED S. SHUAIB, ESQ. For Respondent(s)