FIRST CITY MONUMENT BANK PLC v. LIQUID AFRICA HOLDINGS LIMITED & ORS (2019)

FIRST CITY MONUMENT BANK PLC v. LIQUID AFRICA HOLDINGS LIMITED & ORS

(2019)LCN/13286(CA)

In The Court of Appeal of Nigeria

On Friday, the 17th day of May, 2019

CA/L/390/2016

JUSTICES

MOHAMMED LAWAL GARBA Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria

JOSEPH SHAGBAOR IKYEGH Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria

ABIMBOLA OSARUGUE OBASEKI-ADEJUMO Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria

Between

FIRST CITY MONUMENT BANK PLC – Appellant(s)

AND

1. LIQUID AFRICA HOLDINGS LIMITED

2. MR. GRANT BAKER

(suing by their Lawful Attorney Barrister Osondu Chigozir Onwumere)

3. STANDARD CHARTERED BANK PLC

4. VICTOR OBAIKA

(Trading as ObaIka and Company) – Respondent(s)

RATIO

WHETHER OR NOT ABSENCE OF PARTICULARS OF A GROUND OF APPEAL IS NOT FATAL TO THE GROUND IF IT CONTAINS POINT OF COMPLAINT

The law is also firmly settled now that the mere absence of particulars of or under a ground of appeal is not fatal to the ground if the ground contains the point of complaint against the decision of a lower Court to enable the Respondent know the nature of the issue to be argued at the hearing of the appeal. The essence and purpose of a ground of appeal is primarily, to give adequate notice of the complaint against the decision of a lower Court to the Respondent so as to enable him know and prepare to meet or answer it at the hearing of the appeal. See Osasona v. Ajayi (2004) 5 SC (Pt. 1) 88 @ 96, Iwuoha v. NIPOST (2003) 8 NWLR (822) 308, Briggs v. Okoye (2005) 4 SC, 89 @ 108, Odon v. Barigha-Amange (No. 2) (10) 12 NWLR (1207) 13, Ila Ent. Ltd v. Umar Ali & Co. Ltd (2013) 15 NWLR (1376) 191. So where a ground of appeal contains the precise complaint against the decision of a lower Court in clear language, it is a valid and competent ground since a Respondent would readily know the nature of the complaint and what to meet at the hearing of the appeal. PER GARBA, J.C.A.

THE RIGHTS OF PARTIES TO A FAIR HEARING

Briefly, because it is constitutionally guaranteed, the right of parties to fair hearing in the determination of their civil rights and obligations by the Courts or Tribunal established by law; including the Constitution, is sacrosanct as any denial or breach of the right would render proceedings in which it occurred, null, void and of no legal effect or consequence, ab initio. Francis v. Osunkwo (2000) 7 NWLR (666) 564, Azuh v. UBN, Plc (2004) 14 NWLR (899) 414, Zideeh v. R.S.C.S.C. (2007) 3 NWLR (1022) 554, Adeogun v. Fasogbon (2011) 8 NWLR (1250) 427, Mfa v. Inongha (2014) NWLR (1397) 343, Abah v. Monday (2015) 14 NWLR (1480) 569, Achuzia v. Agbomali (2016) 11 NWLR (1522) 59. Where a party alleges that his right to fair hearing was breached or denied in the determination of his civil rights and/or obligations in judicial proceedings of a Court, he bears the burden of proving the allegation as the person who asserts the breach or denial. Onagoruwa v. Inspector General of Police (1991) 5 NWLR (193) 593 @ 641, Okike v. LPDC (2005) SCNJ, 596, (2005) 3-4 SC, 49, Maikyo v. Itodo (2007) 5 MJSC, 60, Gbadamosi v. Dairo (2007) 1 SCNJ, 444, Mogaji v. Nigeria Army (2008) 8 NWLR (1089) 338. PER GARBA, J.C.A.

MOHAMMED LAWAL GARBA, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): The Appellant was one of the Garnishees in the garnishee proceedings initiated by 1st and 2nd Respondents in respect of a judgement entered in their favour by the High Court of Lagos State against Obaika Consulting Limited and the 4th Respondent. On 13th March, 2015, the Appellant was served a Garnishee Order Nisi issued by the High Court directing it to show cause why the order should not be made absolute in respect of the judgement debtors money held in their accounts with the Appellant.

From the Record of Appeal, the Appellant filed an Affidavit to which were attached, statements of accounts of the judgement debtors, on the 16th April, 2015 in reaction to the Order Nisi, while the 1st and 2nd Respondents filed a Counter Affidavit on 5th May, 2015 to the said Affidavit. Appellant said it was not served with the Counter Affidavit which was however said to have been used and relied on by the High Court to make the Order Nisi, absolute in a Ruling delivered on 11th December, 2015.

The Appellant brought the appeal by the initial Notice of Appeal dated and filed on

19th January, 2016, and the Amended Notice of Appeal dated and filed on 15th June, 2017 and from the five grounds contained thereon, three (3) issues are formulated in the Appellants brief filed on the same date for determination by the Court. They are: –

i. Whether the 1st and 2nd respondents counter affidavit dated 5/05/2015 ought to be relied upon by the trial Court to found the garnishee order absolute against the appellant. Issue No. I relates to ground No. 2 of the Grounds of Appeal.

ii. Whether the burden of proof that the appellant is indebted to the judgement debtor (3rd Respondent) lies upon the judgement creditors (1st and 2nd Respondents) or the 4th garnishee (Appellant). Issue No: ii relates to grounds No. 3 & 4 of the Grounds of Appeal.

iii. Whether the facts contained in the Appellants affidavit to show cause sufficiently discloses the debt owing from the Appellant to the 4th Respondent (judgement debtor). Issue No: iii relates to grounds No. 5 of the Grounds of Appeal.

The 1st and 2nd Respondent filed a brief on 10th May, 2018 and a Notice of Preliminary Objection on the 24th

August, 2017 which was argued in the brief, deemed on 27th February 2019. The Appellant filed a Reply brief on 25th January, 2019, also deemed on 27th February 2019.

The 3rd and 4th Respondents through duly served with all the material processes of the appeal, did not file any process or appear in Court for the prosecution of the appeal.

Dealing with the 1st and 2nd Respondents objection first, the grounds upon which it is premised are that: –

1. The Amended Notice of Appeal dated 15th June 2017 is incompetent.

2. The grounds of appeal are incompetent for not complaining against the ratio decidendi of the judgement of the trial Court.

3. The grounds of appeal are marred by irrelevant particulars.

4. The appeal raises fresh issues on appeal without leave.

5. The issues raised in the Appellants brief dated 15 June 2017 are incompetent.

The issue said to call for resolution of the objection, in the 1st and 2nd Respondents brief, is whether the grounds of appeal and issues drawn therefrom are not incompetent.

The arguments are that grounds 2 and issue 1 do not flow

from the ratio decidendi of the decision by the High Court as the issue of lack of service of the Counter Affidavit dated 5th May, 2015 did not arise and was not decided by the Court. Among other cases, Chiorlu v. Akani (2001) ALL FWLR (1971) 1781 @ 1788 was cited for the argument. Ground 4 is said to be in general terms and incompetent on the authority of A.S.R. Company Limited v. O.O.Biosah & Company Limited (1997) 11 NWLR (537) 145 @ 147 and Ayinla v. Adigun (1986) 3 NWLR (30) 511. It is also argued that because issue ii was distilled from grounds 3 and 4; which is incompetent, it is incompetent and further that grounds 3 and 5 are also incompetent for lack of relevant particulars of the error and misdirection alleged. Dambani v. Lele (2000) FWLR (24) 14-61 @ 1488, Akuniwu Motors Limited v. Sangonuga (1984) 15 NSCC, 353, Nwadike v. Ibekwe (1987) 12 SC 14 @ 54-5 were cited in support of the contention.

Cases were also referred to on the nature of a Notice of Appeal and consequence of defective one and the law that issues for determination must be based on competent grounds of an appeal. Revised Manual of Brief Writing in this Court and Supreme Court by P.

Nnaemeka-Agu (CON) was also referred to on when an issue is defective and the Court is urged, in conclusion, to uphold the objection and strike out the appeal.

In the Appellants Reply brief, it is submitted that the issue of non-service of the Counter Affidavit of 5th May, 2015 on the Appellant was not raised because the Appellant was not aware of the Counter Affidavit and so the complaint in grounds 2 and 5 of the Notice of Appeal is that the Appellants right to fair hearing was denied by the non-service of the said Counter Affidavit and reliance on same by the High Court in its decision. Citing Section 36(1) of the 1999 Constitution (as altered), it is argued that the breach of the right to right to fair hearing goes to the issue of jurisdiction of the High Court which can be raised at any stage of the proceedings, even at appeal, for the first time. FRN v. Nwosu (2016) 17 NWLR (1541) 226 @ 287 and Dunalin Investment Limited v. BGL, Plc (2016) 18 NWLR (1544) 262 @ 328 were referred to and in further argument, learned Counsel said the grounds of appeal are supported by relevant particulars and the issues are competent having arisen from the

Ruling of the High Court.

The case of Okafor v. Abumofuani (2016) 2 NWLR (1525) 119 @ 134-5 was cited and the Court is urged to dismiss the objection, in conclusion.

For resolution of the objection against the grounds of the Amended Notice of Appeal, it is expedient to call in the grounds, without their particulars, in order to see what the complaints are therein.

Here they are: –

Ground No. 1

That the ruling is against the weight of Evidence.

Ground No. 2

That the learned trial Judge erred in law when she made absolute the garnishee order nisi made against the 4th garnishee by relying heavily on the garnishors/judgement creditors counter affidavit against the 4th garnishees/written address in support, all dated 5/05/2015, in response to the 4th garnishees affidavit to show cause when the counter affidavit/written address were not served on the 4th garnishee contrary to the provisions of S. 36 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 as amended.

Ground No. 3

The learned trial Judge erred in law when she held that ?the duty of a garnishee is to convince the Court that

it does not have funds belonging to the judgement debtor when the Provisions of S. 83(1) of the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act, 2004 requires the garnishor to show by affidavit . that any other person is indebted to such debtor and that debts owing from such third person, hereinafter called the garnishee shall be attached.

Ground No. 4

The trial Judge erred in law when she made absolute the garnishee order nisi when the garnishors/judgement creditors did not prove by a preponderance of evidence in their affidavit in support that the 4th garnishee is indebted to the judgement debtor (3rd garnishee) in its various accounts depicted in Exhibits A to A6 of the 4th garnishees affidavit to show cause

Ground No. 5

The learned trial Judge misdirected herself on the facts of this case when she held that ?The 4th garnishee not having disclosed the true status of the accounts it admitted and having hidden some other relevant accounts from the Court? as the Court had earlier cited with approval the case of Oceanic Bank Plc v. Micheal Oladepo & Anor (2012) LPELR 18670(CA)

to the effect that the the garnishee has a duty to disclose the true status of the account statement of the judgement debtor as at the relevant date indicated on the garnishee order nisi.

Perhaps, I should state that grounds 2, 3, 4 and 5 all have particulars set out thereunder on the Notice of Appeal and as can be seen, ground 1 is an omnibus ground of appeal for which no particulars are required.

Now, the primary complaint in ground 2 is that the Appellant was not served with the Counter Affidavit of the 1st and 2nd Respondents to its Affidavit to show cause, which the High Court relied on to make the garnishee order absolute against it. Learned Counsel for the 1st and 2nd Respondents did not dispute or challenge the fact that the said Counter Affidavit filed for the 1st and 2nd Respondents was not served on or brought to the attention of the Appellants Counsel either before or at the hearing of the motion for the order absolute or that the said Counter Affidavit was relied on by the High Court to make the garnishee order absolute. In the absence of any fact or evidence to show the Appellant was aware of the said Counter

Affidavit, before or at the hearing of the 1st and 2nd Respondents motion for the garnishee order absolute, the Appellant is entitled to complaint and raise the non service of the Counter Affidavit on it as a ground of appeal on alleged breach of its right to fair hearing, which goes to affect the entire proceedings in the case and the jurisdiction of the High Court, if proved. The ground and issue touching on alleged breach of the right of fair hearing of a party in the conduct of the judicial proceedings of a trial Court and jurisdiction, can be properly and validly be raised for the first time in an appellate Court. Nuhu v. Ogele (2003) 12 SC (Pt. 1) 32, A.G. Rivers State v. Ude (2006) 17 NWLR (1008) 436, Agbiti v. Nigeria Navy (2011) 4 NWLR (1236) 175.

the complaint against the decision of a lower Court to the Respondent so as to enable him know and prepare to meet or answer it at the hearing of the appeal. See Osasona v. Ajayi (2004) 5 SC (Pt. 1) 88 @ 96, Iwuoha v. NIPOST (2003) 8 NWLR (822) 308, Briggs v. Okoye (2005) 4 SC, 89 @ 108, Odon v. Barigha-Amange (No. 2) (10) 12 NWLR (1207) 13, Ila Ent. Ltd v. Umar Ali & Co. Ltd (2013) 15 NWLR (1376) 191. So where a ground of appeal contains the precise complaint against the decision of a lower Court in clear language, it is a valid and competent ground since a Respondent would readily know the nature of the complaint and what to meet at the hearing of the appeal.

In the present appeal, I have stated earlier that grounds 2 to 5 of the Amended Notice of Appeal have particulars set out thereunder and I would say that the specific complaint against the decision of the High Court in each of the grounds is so clear, plain and unambiguous so as to give adequate notice to the Respondents of the nature of the complaint and what issues are to be heard at the appeal. Each of the particulars to the grounds relates to and ossify the complaint in the body of the

grounds to leave no doubt about the nature of the complaints against the Ruling of the High Court.

It is because the nature of the complaints in the grounds of the appeal are so clear and sufficiently known to learned Counsel for the 1st and 2nd Respondents that he was able to pick out what he considers defects in them to form the basis of his technical objection to them.

I find no merit in the objection and it is overruled.

The appeal would be considered and determined on the merit of the issues raised and canvassed by the Appellant as they represent the complaints against the Ruling by the High Court.

Appellants Submission:

The submissions on issue (i) are that because the Counter Affidavit of 5th May, 2015 filed by the 1st and 2nd Respondents to the Appellants Affidavit to show cause, was not served on the Appellants Counsel and it was relied on by the High Court to make the garnishee order absolute, against the Appellant; its right to fair hearing was breached. Orders 33, Rule 6 and 39, Rule 1(4) and (5) of the High Court Rules, 2012 as well as the cases of Mpama v. FBN, Plc (2013) 5 NWLR (1346) 176 @ 199 and

Citec E Int. Estates Limited v. Francis (2014) NWLR (1408) 139 @ 163 on the determination and consequence of the breach of the right to fair hearing, were cited.

On issue (ii) Section 83(i) of the Sheriff and Civil Process Act, (SCPA) and 131, 132 and 133 of the Evidence Act, 2011 were referred to and it is argued that the burden of proving that the Appellant is owing the 4th Respondents the sum of Five Hundred and Thirty Nine Thousand United State Dollars ($539,000) was on the 1st and 2nd Respondents and not the Appellant as was erroneously held by the High Court. According to Counsel for the Appellant by facts stated in paragraph 4(b) of the Appellants Affidavit to show cause, the Appellant has satisfied the evidential burden of proof required of it to show the debt it owes the judgement debtor. He said the 1st and 2nd Respondents did not discharge the burden of proving that Appellant owes the judgement debtor the sum of the US Dollars claimed and the case of Okoye v. Nwankwo (2014) 15 NWLR (1429) 93 @ 126 and 134 was referred to.

The arguments on issue (iii) are to the effect that the Appellant had complied with the garnishee order nisi by

filing a six (6) paragraphs Affidavit to show cause and in paragraph 4b, furnished the High Court with details of the seven (7) accounts of the judgement debtors with it, showing the balances at the relevant period of the garnishee order nisi. Details of the accounts in paragraph 5 of the Appellant Affidavit to show cause were set out and it is said that while the order nisi did not specify the period of account required for the bank statements, the Appellant provided the statements of accounts in good faith for the relevant period of the order which was served on it on the 13th March, 2015.

It is the contention of learned Counsel that the statement by the High Court that the Appellant furnished the statements of the accounts with single entry showing a balance without history of the transaction is not supported by the facts as the order nisi did not order the Appellant to furnish such history of the transactions in the accounts. It is maintained that Section 83(1) of Sheriff and Civil Process Act, (SPCA) only requires the Appellant to provide a statement of account of debt owing and not day to day transactions details in the judgement

debtors accounts relying on Oceanic Bank Plc v. Oladepo (2012) LPELR- 18670 (CA) and Skye Bank Plc v Colombara (2014) LPELR-22641 (CA). In addition, Section 36 of the Constitution (as altered) and the case of FBN Plc v. FCMB Plc (2013) LPELR-22050 (CA) were cited on the breach of the right of fair hearing. Arguments were then made challenging the 1st and 2nd Respondents Counter Affidavit and in conclusion, the Court is urged to allow the appeal.

1st and 2nd Respondents Submissions:

The arguments are made on the sole issue set out at page 7 of the 1st and 2nd Respondents brief which is couched thus: –

Whether the trial Court was right to hold that the Appellant failed in his duty to disclose the details and true status of all the attachable bank accounts belonging to the Judgement-Debtor and the 3rd garnishee to enable the Court form an independent opinion as to the ability of the Appellant to satisfy the judgment debt.

After setting out portions of the Ruling by the High Court at page 142 and 143 of the Record of Appeal, it is submitted that there is no appeal against the finding by the High Court that

the Appellant failed to comply with the garnishee order nisi within the time stipulated therein and so the appeal must fail, relying on Onafowokan v. Wema Bank Plc (2011) ALL FWLR (585) 201 @ 225. According to the learned Counsel for the 1st and 2nd Respondents, the garnishee order absolute against the Appellant was anchored on three (3) points that: –

(1) the 4th Garnishee did not comply with the garnishee order nisi as it failed to disclose the details and true status of the accounts it admitted to belong to the Judgement Debtor and 3rd Garnishee

(2) the statement of account of all the attachable accounts as admitted by the 4th Garnishee were hidden from the Court; and

(3) the 4th Garnishee hid some other relevant attachable accounts from the Court.

After reference to the definition of statement of account in Blacks Law Dictionary (no page/paragraph cited), it is contended that a valid statement of account, from the definition, should be one which:-

(1) is a monthly or other periodic report;

(2) sets out credit inflows whether by cheque or otherwise;

(3) shows cleared cheques and

returned cheques at specific dates and time;

(4) shows cash deposits made at specific dates and time;

(5) shows debited bank charges and other outflows at specific dates and time;

(6) shows credits given to the account owner such as overdrafts and the date of such credits; and

(7) shows account balances from day to day, which is verifiable by following or tracing all the credit and debit entries earlier made.

It is then submitted that the statement of accounts ordered by the High Court to be filed by the Appellant was to enable it form an independent opinion as to the ability of the Appellant to satisfy the judgment debt and the single entry statement of accounts provided without details did not meet the definition of a statement of account and so the High Court was right to have rejected them. Total Upstream Nigeria v. A.I.C. Limited (2015) LPELR-2538 and Oceanic Bank, Plc v. Oladepo (supra) were referred to and said not to support the Appellants case. It is argued that the Appellant has misconceived the garnishee proceedings invoked by the coercive powers of a Court, as garnishee, to show cause and so the

burden was on the garnishee to satisfy the Court by disclosure of the judgments debtors account, but to furnish true status of the accounts from inception, that would enable it see and decide the debt owed the judgement debtor. Learned Counsel said the High Court rightly relied on additional evidence in the Counter Affidavit to conclude that the Appellant hid some other two attached or attachable accounts of the judgment debtors since the Appellant was absent at the hearing and Exhibit G, attached to an Affidavit, was relevant and admissible, on the authority of Torti v. Ukpabi (1984) 1 SCNLR, 214 @ 239. It is also submitted that since the Appellant was absent at the hearing, it was deemed to have abandoned its Affidavit to show cause which was filed out of time and also consented to the Counter Affidavit of the 1st and 2nd Respondents, on the authority of Adeogun v. Fasogbon (2011) ALL FWLR (576) 485 @ 506-9. According to Counsel, the Appellant cannot deny service, or notice of the Counter Affidavit and that Section 86 of the Sheriff and Civil Process Act, as well as Diamond Bank Limited v. Ndubuisi (2002) FWLR (105) 727 @ 735, support the

decision by the High Court to make the garnishee order absolute since the Appellant did not show cause why it should not have been made.

In conclusion, the Court is urged to dismiss the appeal for want of merit.

In the Appellants Reply brief, every point raised in the Respondents brief was responded to; paragraph by paragraph and arguments in the Appellants brief were either repeated or further arguments were made on the points or issues already canvassed. By the provisions of Order 19, Rule 5(1) of the Court of Appeal Rule 2016, an Appellants Reply is to be filed to answer any and only new points arising from the Respondents brief and is not meant to respond to every point canvassed in the Respondents brief. Where no new point was raised and canvassed in the Respondents brief, an Appellants Reply brief becomes unnecessary and undesirable since the Respondents brief is in answer or response to the arguments of the points or issues canvassed in the Appellants brief, though may be in terms and tenor favourable to the Respondent. See Iweka v. FRN (2013) 3 NWLR (1341) 285,

Husseni v. Mohammed (2015) 3 NWLR (1445) 100, Briltania-U Nigeria Limited v. Septlat Pet. Dev. Co. Ltd (2016) 4 NWLR (1503) 541.

The repetitions and further arguments in the Reply brief would be discountenanced.

It is submitted that the provisions of Section 87 of the Sheriff and Civil Process Act should have been considered and applied by the High Court before making the order absolute in order to ensure fair hearing of disputed facts of the debt owed to the judgement debtors by the Appellant.

Resolution:

The pith of the Appellants complaint under issue (i) is that its right to fair hearing was breached on the ground that the 1st and 2nd Respondents Counter Affidavit of 3rd May, 2015 which was relied on by the High Court to make the garnishee order absolute, was not served on it. The fundamental and crucial nature of the right of a party to fair hearing in the conduct of the judicial proceedings of a Court of law or tribunal established by law as provided for and guaranteed by the provisions of Section 36(1) of the 1999 Constitution (as altered) and the consequence of established denial of breach of the right, is now very elementary in the

Nigerian judicial administration system and jurisprudence.

60, Gbadamosi v. Dairo (2007) 1 SCNJ, 444, Mogaji v. Nigeria Army (2008) 8 NWLR (1089) 338. It is the Appellant here who alleges that its right to fair hearing was denied or breached in the conduct of the garnishee proceedings before the High Court on the primary ground of non service of the 1st and 2nd Respondents Counter Affidavit in the proceedings.

The legal burden therefore lies on the Appellant to show that it was in fact not served as alleged, from the Record of Appeal which contains the garnishee proceedings that the Appellant was involved in before the High Court.

As may have been observed, the learned Counsel for the Appellant did not make reference to any part of the record of the garnishee proceedings at which the fact that the Counter Affidavit of 5th May, 2015 filed by the 1st and 2nd Respondents was not served on it, was brought to the notice or attention of the High Court. It must be remembered that the allegation of the breach or denial of the right to fair hearing in a case lies in the procedure employed or used in the conduct of the proceedings of a Court or Tribunal and not in the ultimate decision reached in the case.

Orugbo v. Una(2002) 16 NWLR (792) 175, Inakoju v. Adeleke (2007) 4 NWLR (1025) 423 @ 621, FBN, Plc v. TSA Ind. Limited (2010) 15 NWLR (1216) 259, Military Governor, Lagos State v. Adeyiga (2012) 5 NWLR (1293) 291. In that regard, in order to determine whether or not the right was denied or breached in respect of a party to the proceedings, resort is to be had to the record of what factually happened or took place in the conduct of the proceedings in which the breach or denial was alleged, as borne out by or in the Record of Appeal. A party who alleges the breach or denial of its right to fair hearing is to discharge the burden of proof by demonstrating from relevant portions or parts of Record of Appeal where and/or how it was denied the opportunity to be heard in the proceedings in question and its right to fair hearing breached thereby.

Basically, the right to fair hearing connotes the right to be afforded the opportunity to be heard or of a hearing on a relevant and material issue in a case before a decision is reached by a Court which would affect the civil rights and obligations of a party/person. Ogundoyin v. Adeyemi (2001) 13 NWLR (730) 403, Unibiz

Nigeria Limited v. C.B.C.L. Limited (2003) 6 NWLR (816) 402, Newswatch Communication Limited v. Atta (2006) 12 NWLR (993) 144, Military Governor, Lagos State v. Adeyiga (supra).

The garnishee proceedings against the Appellant and others were initiated by the motion ex parte filed by the 1st and 2nd Respondents on the 13th December, 2015 by which it prayed for the following reliefs: –

1. AN ORDER that debts owing from the 1st Garnishee (Wema Bank Plc), 2nd Garnishee (Standard Chartered Bank Plc), and 4th Garnishee (First City Monument Bank Plc) respectively to the Judgement Debtor and the judgement Debtors money kept by the Garnishee (Obaika & Company) in 1st, 2nd and 4th Garnishee Bank respectively, be attached to satisfy the judgement debt and costs made on 16/9/2014 and 10/02/14 respectively, to wit: $539,000 together with interest at the rate of 22% per annum from 16/2/2012 to 16/9/2014, post judgement interest at the rate of 22% per annum from 17/9/2014 until fully liquidated, N30,000 as costs of the action and N25,000 as costs of the judgement debtors motion dismissed on 10/02/15.

2. An Order that the 1st Garnishee

(Wema Bank Plc), 2nd Garnishee (Standard Chartered Bank Plc) and 4th Garnishee (First Monument Bank Plc) respectively do exhibit the bank statements of the judgement debtor (Obaika Consulting Ltd) and 3rd Garnishee (Obaika And Company) and appear before the Court to show cause why the garnishee order absolute shall not be made.

3. Such further or other orders as the Honourable Court may deem fit to make.

The grounds for the reliefs were that: –

1. The Judgement Creditors/Applicants obtained final money judgement against the Judgement Debtor on 16/9/2014 together with costs but the said Judgement debt has not been satisfied in whole or in part.

2. The Judgment Debtors motion to set aside the final money judgement was dismissed with costs by the Court on 10/02/15.

3. Mr. Victor Obaika and Mrs. Asaba Obaika are the only shareholders and directors of the Judgement Debtor and Mr. Victor Obaika is also the sole proprietor of the 3rd Garnishee (Obaika And Company) from whose accounts it has been paying contractual debts of the Judgement Debtor to the Judgement Creditor.

The ex parte motion was supported by a

twenty-two (22) paragraphs Affidavit deposed to by a Legal Practitioner in the Chambers of the learned Counsel for the 1st and 2nd Respondents, on the 3rd February, 2015.

The High Court granted the ex-parte motion as prayed by the 1st and 2nd Respondents Counsel and admittedly, the Appellant was served with the Garnishee Order Nisi made by the High Court on the 12th March, 2015.

The terms of the Order Nisi are as follows: –

ORDER IS MADE AS PRAYED

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT:

The garnishees shall file and serve their affidavits to show cause within 14 days of receipt of the garnishee order that: –

The return date is 16/04/2015.

ISSUED UNDER the hand and seal of the Presiding Judge.

Dated at High Court No. 22, Lagos Fast Track Division, Igbosere, Lagos this 12th day of March, 2015.

From the record of the proceedings of 12th March, 2015, S.N. Okoli, Esq. appeared for the Appellant and was in Court when the proceedings were adjourned to the 16th April, 2015 as the return date for the garnishee proceedings.

On the said date, i.e. 16th April, 2015 Mr. Okoli again appeared for the Appellant and

stated that:

Okoli: The affidavit of the 4th Garnishee was filed late. There was a few sums in the seven (7) accounts the 3rd Garnishee has with us.

After noting that the Garnishees failure to comply with its order of 12th March, 2015, the High Court eventually stated that: –

The fact remains that until an order of Court is set aside, it remains valid and ought to be obeyed. Therefore the 1st, 2nd and 4th Garnishees shall comply with the order nisi forthwith. They are to file affidavits and statements of account in strict compliance with the order and serve same within seven days hereof.

Further proceedings in the application for Garnishee order absolute shall abide the ruling in this Notice of Preliminary Objection while the application for stay of execution shall be heard after the ruling is addressed.

Ruling is reserved until 05/06/2016.

It is clear from the order by the High Court above, that the Appellant and other garnishees were given a fresh order to comply with the order nisi by filing Affidavit and Statement of Accounts within seven days from the 16th April, 2015 and proceedings were

adjourned 5th June, 2015, on which there is no record of proceedings.

The proceedings came up on 9th June, 2015 and the Appellants Counsel was in Court when the 1st and 2nd Respondents Counsel stated that:

Obah: (sic) The Garnishees have not furnished the Statement of Account of the 3rd Garnishee as ordered by the Court. They filed further affidavits that do not disclose any facts. I have responded with counter affidavits.

There is no record to show that the Appellants Counsel indicated that the Counter Affidavits filed by Mr. Oboh were not served on him or notified the High Court that the said Counter Affidavits were not served on the Appellant, before the proceedings were adjourned to 16th July, 2015 as agreed by learned counsel for hearing.

On the 16th July, 2015, there was no appearance recorded for the Appellants Counsel in whose presence and who along with other counsel, agreed for the adjournment to that date. Ruling was then reserved until 9th October, 2015, and later on 7th December, 2015, when there was no appearance for the garnishees, until 11th December, 2015.

The Appellant was represented by Counsel when the Ruling was delivered.

From the record of the garnishee proceedings involving the Appellant as summarized above, there is no step taken by the High Court which suggests any denial, breach or even compromise of the Appellants right to fair hearing in the conduct of the proceedings to warrant the allegation made by the Counsel for the Appellant in this appeal. It is not enough or sufficient for Counsel to make bare allegation of denial or breach of the right to fair hearing which has no bearing and cannot be traced or supported by the record of the proceedings from which the breach was alleged to have occurred. If the Appellants Counsel did not formally notify or inform either the High Court or the 1st and 2nd Respondents that he or the Appellant was not served with the Counter Affidavit in question and chose to continue with the proceedings to the end, it does not lie in his mouth to make the spurious allegation of the denial of the right to fair hearing on the ground of the phantom assertion of non-service of the Counter Affidavit or reliance on it by the High Court in the application to make the

order nisi, absolute. I find the immutable erudition of Tobi, JSC dealing with situations as the Appellants Counsel here, in the case of Adebayo v. Attorney General, Ogun State (2008) 7 NWLR (1085) 201 @ 221-2, apt. The learned Law Lord had stated that: –

Learned Counsel for the appellant roped in the fair hearing principle. I have seen in recent times that parties who have had cases embrace and make use of the constitutional provision of fair hearing to bamboozle the adverse party and the Court, with a view to moving the Court away from the live issues in the litigation. They make so much weather and sing the familiar song that the constitutional provisions is violated or contravened. They do not stop there. They rake the defence in most inappropriate cases because they have nothing to canvass in their favour in the case. The fair hearing provisions in the Constitution is the machinery or locomotive of justice, not a spare part to propel or invigorate the case of the user. It is not a casual principle of law available to a party to be picked up at will in a case and force the Court to apply it to his advantage. On the contrary, it is a

formidable and fundamental constitutional provisions available to a party who is really denied fair hearing because he was not heard or that he was not properly heard in the case. Let litigants who have nothing useful to advocate in favour of their cases leave the fair hearing constitutional provision alone because it is not available to them just for the asking.

The allegation of denial or breach of the right to fair hearing so casually resorted to by Counsel even in the most inappropriate of cases, is not a magic wand that automatically covers and cures every or all weaknesses, defects or deficiencies in a case. Like every other assertion or allegation of fact, the law requires that it must be proved with credible and sufficient evidence to the satisfaction of the appellate Court if the consequences of the breach or denial are to be visited on the proceedings in which it occurred. The law is settled; See Hyppolite v. Egharevba (1998) 11 NWLR (575) 598; Wema Bank, Nig. Ltd v. Odulaja (2000) 3 SC, 83, (2000) 7 NWLR (663) 1; Onjewu v. K. S. M. C. I. (2003) 10 NWLR (827) 40; First Inland Bank, Plc v. Effiong (2010) 16 NWLR (1218) 199,

that any decision based on a process which was not served is liable to be set aside when there was satisfactory proof of the non-service. There is no such proof by the Appellants Counsel in this appeal and so the allegation is doomed to fail, as a farce.

There is no merit in the issue and it is resolve against the Appellant.

The complaint in Issue ii (2) is on the burden of proof that the Appellant is indebted to the judgement debtor in the sum of U$539,000. The argument that the burden is on the 1st and 2nd Respondents, is premised on the misconceived nature of garnishee proceedings. In Citizens Int. Bank Ltd. v. SCOA Nig. Ltd. (2006) 18 NWLR (1011) 332; Salami, JCA, defined garnishee proceedings as follows:-

Garnishee proceedings are a process of enforcing a money judgement by the seizure or attachment of the debts due or accruing to the judgement debtor, which forms part of his property for attachment. By this process, the Court is competent to order the third party in whose hands the property of the judgement debtor is to pay direct to the judgement creditor the debt due or accruing due from him to the judgement debtor or as much of it

as may be deficient to satisfy the judgement and the costs of the garnishee proceedings.

The learned Law lord then said: –

Be that as it may, garnishee proceeding is by its nature different from other Court proceedings. It is peculiar in as much as it is done in stages. The ex parte application commencing the proceedings is confined to the judgement creditor and the Court. Thereafter, if the judgement creditor satisfies the Court on the existence of the third party who is holding money due or accruing to the judgement debtor, such a third person will be called upon to show sufficient cause why the judgement debtors money in the hands of the third party would not be paid over to the judgement creditor.

See also Sokoto State Govt. v. Kamdex Nig. Ltd (2004) 9 NWLR (878); UBN, Plc. v. Boney Marcu Ind. Ltd (2005) ALLFWLR (278) 1037 @ 1046; UBA, Plc. v. Ekanem (2010) 6 NWLR (1190) 207; 3rd Edition of Words and Phrases Legally Defined, Vol. 2, pages 313-4; N. A. O. C. Ltd. v. Ogini(2011) 2 NWLR (1230) 131.

Section 83 of the SCPA provides for the garnishee proceedings and the procedure therefore as follows: –

1. The Court may, upon the ex parte application of any person who is entitled to the benefit of a judgment of the recovery or payment of money, either before or after any oral examination of the debtor liable under such judgement and upon affidavit by the applicant or his legal practitioner that judgment has been recovered and that it is still unsatisfied and 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 the 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 has obtained such judgment or order the debt due from him to such debtor or so much thereof as may be sufficient to satisfy the judgment or order together with costs aforesaid.

2. At least fourteen days before the day of hearing, a copy of the order nisi shall be served upon the garnishee and on the judgement debt.

Simply put, these provisions allow a party in whose favour a monetary judgement was entered by a Court; the judgement creditor, against another party; the judgement debtor, to apply to the Court by way of ex parte application, for the direct recovery of the judgement sum from a third party within the jurisdiction of the Court; the garnishee, who owes a debt to the judgement debtor, in satisfaction of the judgement.

The provisions also grant the Court the power to attach the said debt owed by the third party by way of an order nisi, for the satisfaction of the judgement sum, if satisfied on the affidavit evidence placed before it by the judgement creditor and may also order the garnishee to appear before it to show cause why he should not pay the debt owed to the judgement debtor, directly to the judgement creditor in satisfaction of the judgment sum. Where the garnishee is ordered by the Court to appear to show cause, the order nisi shall be served on him at least fourteen (14) days before the hearing at which he is to appear. See Wema Bank v. Brastem-Sterr Nig. Ltd (2011) 6 NWLR (1242) 58; STB Ltd v. Contract Resources Nig. Ltd (2001) 6 NWLR (708) 115.

By garnishee order nisi and directed at a garnishee to appear and show cause why he should not pay the debt owed to the judgement debtor and attached by the Court in the order, the Court places the legal burden on the garnishee to satisfy it of the existence and position of the debt owed by him to the judgement debtor so as to enable it determine whether or not to order the garnishee to pay such debt directly to the judgement creditor through the Court. Usually, the judgement creditor would or should specifically name the nature and the amount(s) of the debt owed by the garnishee to be attached by the Court for the satisfaction of the judgement sum, by or in the facts deposed to in the Affidavit in support of the ex parte application. The garnishee order nisi to be made by a Court and to be served on the garnishee shall contain such vital details of the nature and amount of the debt said to be owed by him to the judgement debtor and which is attached by the order so as to enable the garnishee know and adequately prepare to appear and show cause, if he disputes the debt, why he should not pay it as may be ordered by the Court.

The relevant depositions by the 1st and

2nd Respondents in the Affidavit in support of the ex parte application for the attachment of debt said to be owed by the garnishees, including the Appellant are in paragraphs 11-20 and as follows: –

11. That the 1st Garnishee, 2nd Garnishee and 4th Garnishee are bankers to the Judgement Debtor and the 3rd Garnishee.

12. That the Garnishees have severally in their custody sufficient funds belonging to the Defendant/Judgement Debtor to satisfy the Judgment debt in whole or in part.

13. That the Judgement Debtor saves and funnels her money through bank accounts maintained in the name of 3rd Garnishee.

14. That I know that the Judgment Debtor has by conduct and writing shown that his liabilities are that of the 3rd Garnishee and the 3rd Garnishee has also paid the contractual debt of the Judgment Debtor to the Judgment Creditors. Shown to me is a letter dated 13/03/2013 from the Judgment Debtor to the Judgment Creditor and is marked as Exhibit B.

15. That Exhibit B is headed, RE: SALE OF SHARES AGREEMENT BETWEEN VICTOR OBAIKA AND LIQUID AFRICA, and the table of liabilities contained therein shows Outstanding

Liabilities to be borne by Victor Obaika

16. That shown to be is document showing transfer of $561,000 by 3rd Garnishee to the Judgment Creditors in part performance of the subject contract upon which judgment has been recovered. The same is marked as Exhibit C.

17. That Mr. Victor Obaika and Mrs. Obaika are the only shareholders and directors of the Judgment Debtor. Shown to me and marked as Exhibit D are the particulars of directors and shareholders of the Judgment Debtor company.

18. That Mr. Victor Obaika is the sole proprietor of the 3rd Garnishee (Obaika and Company).

19. That the Garnishee bankers are within the jurisdiction of the Honourable Court.

20. That the Judgment Debtor and the 3rd Garnishee maintains accounts at 1st, 2nd and 4th Garnishees branches at Marina Lagos, Ahmadu Bello Way, Victoria Island, and Tinubu Street, Lagos, respectively.

I have earlier set out the enrolled order nisi served on the Appellant. In reaction and response to the order to show cause, the Appellant as stated before now, filed a six (6) paragraphs Affidavit on 16th April, 2015, the date on which, as shown earlier, the High

Court again ordered the garnishees to file their affidavit, and statement of account in compliance with its order, within seven (7) days. Paragraphs 4 and 5 of the Affidavit of the Appellant are thus:

4. That Adewale Fati, Legal Officer of 4th Garnishee, informed me at the Office premises of the First City Monument Bank Plc, Primrose Towers, 17A, Tinubu Street, Lagos on 23/3/2015 at about 1.00pm and I verily believe same to be true

a. That when the Order Nisi made by this Honourable Court was brought to the notice of the bank, the database of the bank was searched and it revealed that the Judgment Debtor does not maintain any account with the bank.

b. That only the 3rd Garnishee maintains seven (7) accounts with the bank and the details are: –

Account Name Account No. Currency Balance

1. Obaika & Company 0408793015 USD 2.80

2. Obaika & Company 0408793022 NGN 1,062.48

3. Obaika & Company 0408793053 GBP 24.91

4. Obaika & Company 0408793039 EUR 4.00

5. Obaika Victor 0569096017 NGN 2,485.55

6. Obaika Victor 0569096024 USD 48.40

7. Obaika Victor 0569096031 NGN 5,830.85Cr

5. That the attendant statements of account of the aforementioned accounts are attached herewith and marked Exhibit A to A6.

Copies of the statement of accounts marked as Exhibits A-A6 show that Exhibits A-A2 are indicated to be for the period of 1st-20th of March, 2015, Exhibits A3-A5 are for the period of 13th-24th of March, 2015 while Exhibit A6 is the summary of Exhibits A-A5.

In the Counter Affidavit of the 1st and 2nd Respondents filed on 5th May, 2015, the avernments are as follows: –

2. That I have read the affidavits to show cause filed by the 4th Garnishee on 16th April, 2015.

3. That I verily believe that the 4th Garnishee has not made an honest and faithful disclosure of the details of the accounts attached by the Garnishee Order Nisi.

4. That by paragraph 4(b) (1-4) of the 4th Garnishee affidavit to show cause, it was disclosed that Obaika and Company maintains 4 accounts, that is to say, Account Numbers 0408793015 (Dollar), 0408793022 (Naira), 0408793053(Pounds Sterling) and 0408793039 (Euro).

5. That by paragraph 4 (b) (5-7) of the 4th Garnishees affidavit to show cause, Obaika Victor or Victor

Obaika has 3 accounts, that is Account Numbers 0569096017 (Naira), 0569096024(Dollar) and 0569096031(Naira).

6. That there was no true and faithful bank statement showing debits, credits and balances in any of the account from January to April 2013, at the least in any of the accounts mentioned above.

7. That I know that the 3rd Garnishee whether as Victor Obika or Obaika and Company have other accounts with the 4th Garnishee, the details of which the 4th Garnishee is hiding from the Court.

8. That two of the accounts of the 3rd Garnishee are Accounts Numbers 1322050408793001 (Naira) and 1322080408793001 (Dollar). A 3-page document dated 09/09/10 confirming at page 2 thereof that the 3rd Garnishee maintains the said account is now shown to me and marked as Exhibit G.

9. That I verily believe that the 4th Garnishee has failed to disclose a true and faithful accounts of the monies of the Judgment Debtor and 3rd Garnishee Order Nisi.

10. That the Solicitors to the Judgment Debtor and who are also employees of the 3rd Garnishee were present in Court on 12/3/15 when the Garnishee Order Nisi was made and I verily believe that

they may be working with the Garnishees to hide the details of the attached accounts.

11. That Exhibits A3, A4 and A5 attached to 4th Garnishees affidavit to show cause purports to hide the details of the accounts up to 12/03/15 when the Garnishee Order Nisi was made in the presence of the Solicitors to the Judgment Debtor, who are also employees of the 3rd Garnishee, and I verily believe that the bank statements are not sufficient, honest and truthful.

In its Ruling, the High Court stated inter alia, in the determination of whether the garnishee order nisi should be made absolute, that: –

The duty of a garnishee is to convince the Court that it does not have funds belonging to the judgment debtor in its custody or that the money it has is not sufficient to satisfy the judgment debt. If it fails to do so, then it is liable to have an order absolute granted against it.

After a consideration of the statement of accounts filed by the 2nd garnishee and holding that they are a sham and suspect for failure to set out the history and other transactions of the accounts, but contain only entries for the dates set out

therein, the High Court found that 2nd garnishee failed to discharge the burden it has to disclose details of the accounts of the judgement debtors, citing Total Upstream Nig. Ltd v. A.I.C. Ltd (supra) and Oceanic Bank, Plc v. Oladepo (supra). It then concluded that: –

The failure of the 2nd garnishee to disclose the true details of the accounts held with it by the judgment debtor and the 3rd garnishee in defiance of the garnishee order nisi means that it has not shown sufficient reason why an order absolute should not be made. As was held in the case of UBA Plc. v. Boney Marcus Ind. Ltd (supra) cited by the garnishors, if no sufficient reason appears, the garnishee order is made absolute. I find and hold in the light of the foregoing that the garnishee order nisi ought to be made absolute against the 2nd garnishee.

In respect of the Appellant, the finding and conclusion is that: –

The situation of the 4th guarantee is no better than that of the 2nd garnishee. All principles and authorities stated above also apply to it. If furnished seven statement of accounts. All of them had a single entry each showing a balance

but no history of transactions. Interestingly, the accounts are said to be for the period of 13/03/15 to 24/03/15 but those dates are not shown in the body of the statements. The garnishors also furnished evidence that the 3rd garnishee has at least two other accounts mentioned in their Exhibit G attached to their counter affidavit against the 4th garnishees affidavit showing cause, which were not disclosed by the 4th garnishee. The 4th garnishee not having disclosed the true status of the accounts it admitted and having hidden some other relevant accounts from the Court, has not shown sufficient cause why the application for order absolute should not be granted. I therefore find and hold that the order nisi granted by this Court ought to be made absolute against the 4th garnishee as well.

Section 85 of the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act provides that: –

Service of an order that a debt due or accruing to the judgment debtor shall be attached, or notice thereof to the garnishee, in such manner as the Court may direct, shall bind such debt in his hands.

These provisions show clearly that the attachment of the debt due

or accruing to a judgement debtor from a garnishee takes effect from the time/date the order of the attachment was served on the garnishee. From the date a garnishee order nisi attaching debt(s) owed to the judgement debtor by a garnishee was served on the garnishee, the said debts become attached by the order and can only lawfully and legally be operated or administered as may be directed by subsequent order of the Court. Neither the garnishee nor the judgement debtor could legally and properly operate or administer such debts after the date of the service of the garnishee order nisi on the garnishee, attaching the debts. UBA, Plc v. Ekanem (supra); CBN v. Kraus Thompson Org. Ltd. (2002) 7 NWLR (765) 139 @ 154; FMBN Ltd v. Desire Gallery Ltd (2004) 13 NWLR (891) 522. However, a garnishee order nisi does not attach debt(s) which did not exist at the time the order was made and served on the garnishee, but only debts shown to be owed to the judgement debtor by the garnishee at the time the order was made and served. Happenstall v. Jackson (1939) 2 ALL ER, 10 (1939) 1 KB, 585; Sokoto State Govt. v. Kamdex Nig. Ltd (supra) @ 375-6; Oceanic Bank Plc v. Oladepo

(supra); Skye Bank, Plc v. Colombara (supra).

In these premises, the arguments of the 1st and 2nd Respondents which was accepted; hook, line and sinker; so to say, by the High Court, with respect due to it, that because the statement of accounts provided by the Appellant for the accounts held by the 3rd Garnishee as at the time or date the garnishee order nisi was made and served on it, did not contain ?history and other transactions in the said accounts is not supported and not tenable in law. The simple reason is that whatever history the accounts might have or had and transactions made or carried out in the said accounts before the date the order nisi was made by the High Court and served on the Appellant were not covered or affected by and so not relevant and material for the attachment of the debt owed by the Appellant in the said accounts, to the 3rd Garnishee. The Order nisi could not reasonably have been directed at the history of the accounts or other transactions made in the accounts before the garnishee proceedings were initiated and the order nisi made and brought to the notice of the Appellant by way of service thereof, on it. As

stated above, the order nisi was directed at and affected only the debt owed to the 3rd Garnishee as at the date the order was made and served on the Appellant and the burden on the Appellant was to frankly disclose to the High Court the true position of the accounts held by the 3rd Garnishee, showing of the debt, if any, owed by it in the said account as at the date of the service. Section 85 of the SCPA, does not impose any legal duty or burden on a garnishee bank to provide the history or other previous transactions in accounts which were attached by an order nisi, in statements of accounts filed along with an affidavit to show cause.

However, by showing only single entries on each of the statement of accounts for all the period covered by them, including the 13th March 2015, which was a date after receipt of the order nisi attaching the said accounts, the Appellant did not make a full and frank disclosure of the true position of the accounts from the 12th March, 2015 when the order nisi was made and served on it to enable the High Court determine the actual or real state of indebtedness of the Appellant to the 3rd Garnishee in the said accounts as at

the date of its order. I agree with the High Court that the statement of accounts are suspect in the circumstances and do not meet or comply with the order nisi made and serve on the Appellant to show cause and repeated at the proceedings of the 16th April, 2015 in the presence of the Appellants Counsel, who filed the Appellants Affidavit to show cause on that day. Counsel neither complied with the order made by the High Court on that day, nor attended the Court on the 16th July, 2015 when the application to make the order nisi, absolute, was argued. No communication was recorded as having been sent by him to the High Court to excuse the absence from Court. The Appellant did not by the Affidavit filed on 16th April, 2015 show cause why the order nisi ought not to have been made absolute by the High Court in the circumstances of the case, as it had the legal burden to do pursuant to Section 83 of the SCPA.

In the result, the arguments of the Appellant on Issues (ii) and (iii) are lacking in merit and resolved against it.

On the whole, I find no merit in the appeal and it is dismissed.

There shall be costs of Five Hundred Thousand

Naira (N500,000.00) awarded in favour of the 1st and 2nd Respondents to be paid by the Appellant for the prosecution of the appeal.

JOSEPH SHAGBAOR IKYEGH, J.C.A.: I agree with the judgment prepared by my learned brother Mohammed Lawal Garba, J.C.A., (Hon. P.J.).

ABIMBOLA OSARUGUE OBASEKI-ADEJUMO, J.C.A.: I had a preview of the judgment just delivered by my learned brother, MOHAMMED LAWAL GARBA, JCA in this appeal. I agree with the reasoning and conclusion of my brother.

The appeal is unmeritorious and it is hereby dismissed. I abide by all other consequential orders in the lead judgment.

Appearances:

Femi OnibalusiFor Appellant(s)

O.R. Odjighoro for the 3rd Respondent.

4th Respondent not representedFor Respondent(s)

Appearances

Femi OnibalusiFor Appellant

AND

O.R. Odjighoro for the 3rd Respondent.

4th Respondent not representedFor Respondent

LawCare Nigeria

FIRST CITY MONUMENT BANK PLC v. LIQUID AFRICA HOLDINGS LIMITED & ORS (2019)

general

YOU MAY HAVE MISSED

HOW TO REGISTER A COMPANY IN NIGERIA WITH THE CAC: A STEP-BY-STEP GUIDE

THINGS TO CONSIDER BEFORE STARTING A BUSINESS IN NIGERIA

OVERVIEW OF TRANSFER PRICING IN NIGERIA

LAWS REGULATING ADVERTISING COMPANIES IN NIGERIA

general

Related Story

YOU MAY HAVE MISSED