CASE TITLE: CBN v. UWASOMBA & ORS (2024) LPELR-61840(CA)
JUDGMENT DATE: 8TH MARCH, 2024
JUSTICES: AMINA AUDI WAMBAI
ADEMOLA SAMUEL BOLA
MOHAMMED LAWAL ABUBAKAR
DIVISION: OWERRI
PRACTICE AREA: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
FACTS:
This appeal borders on garnishee proceedings.
This is an appeal against the ruling of the High Court of Imo State sitting in Owerri in Suit No: HOW/64/2011, delivered on the 7th day of December 2018.
The trial Court entered judgment in favour of the 1st respondent in the sum of 50,000,000.00 (fifty million naira) with a cost of 30,000 against the 2nd and 3rd Respondents for breach of the estate contract they entered with the 1st Respondent. The 2nd-4th Respondents were served with the writ of summons statement of claim and several hearing notices and they did not deem it necessary to defend the suit. The trial Court proceeded to enter summary judgment against the 2nd-4th Respondent.
The 1st Respondent applied a garnishee order nisi against the Appellant; the order was also served on the 2nd-4th Respondents. The Appellant did not show cause why the garnishee order nisi should not be made absolute, instead, they filed a preliminary objection wherein they prayed to the Court below to dismiss the application because the 2nd Respondent did not obtain the consent of the Honourable Attorney General of the Federation; and also that the Imo State High Court lacked the Jurisdiction to grant the garnishee order nisi because the Central Bank of Nigeria was a Federal Government agency and only the Federal High Court can entertain a garnishee order nisi against it.
The 1st Respondent filed a counter affidavit in opposition to the preliminary objection. The Appellant, in accordance with the rules, filed a reply. At the hearing of the application, it was contended by the 2nd Respondent that Section 84(1) of the Sheriff and Civil Process Act which requires the consent of the Attorney General a member of the executive before a judgment obtained against the executive can be enforced is inconsistent with Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria and accordingly prayed the Court below to strike it down.
The Court heard the counsel’s argument and ruled in favour of the first Respondent. The Court made an absolute Garnishee Order Nisi against the Appellant.
It is against this ruling that the Appellant filed this appeal.
ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION:
The Court considered:
1. Whether the learned trial judge was right in law when he awarded a relief that was not sought for in the garnishee matter by declaring Section 84 (1) of the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act unconstitutional, null and void when the relief claimed by the 1st respondent was for the garnishee order nisi to be made absolute?
2. Whether the learned trial judge was right in law in making the garnishee order nisi absolute instead of setting aside the garnishee order nisi, when it was obvious that the 1st respondent did not seek and obtain the consent of the attorney general of the federation contrary to Section 84(1) of the sheriffs and civil process act, when it was obvious that the appellant, 2nd and 3rd respondent are public officers of the federation?
3. Whether the learned trial judge of the state high court was right in law when he assumed jurisdiction and made garnishee order nisi and order absolute contrary to the provisions of Section 251(1) of the 1999 Constitution, which confers jurisdiction on matters relating to the federal government agencies, banking, banks and central bank of Nigeria on the Federal High Court?
4. Whether the learned trial judge was right in law when he showed likelihood of bias to the appellant by awarding outrageous costs of the sum of 500,000 (five hundred thousand naira) against the appellant after dismissing the preliminary objection of the appellant and another cost of 500,000 after making the garnishee order nisi absolute?
5. Whether the learned trial judge was right in law when he made an award of double compensation to the 1st respondent by awarding firstly the cost of 500,000 (five hundred thousand naira) after dismissing the appellant’s preliminary objection and another sum of 500,000 being the cost of garnishee thereby making the lower court a charitable organization.
COUNSEL SUBMISSIONS:
Learned counsel for the Appellant submits that the Appellant, 2nd, and 3rd Respondents are all public officers. That by the provision of Section 84(1) of the Sheriff and Civil Process, the consent of the 4th Respondent is required before any more held by a public officer can be subject to garnishee proceedings. He relies on the case of C.B.N v. HYDRO AIR PLY LTD (2014) 16 NWLR (PT.434) P.482.
Counsel submits that the provisions of Section 84 of the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act are unambiguous about the steps that should be followed where the garnishee is a public officer. He submits that the consent of the Attorney General is mandatory in this circumstance and failure of the 2nd respondent to obtain same renders the garnishee order absolute made by the trial Judge void.
Learned counsel for the 2nd Respondent submits that only a natural person can be regarded as a public officer and not the public institution they occupy. Submits that the monies in possession of the Central Bank of Nigeria is not in possession of a public officer. He places relies on the case of C.B.N V. NJEMANZE (2015) 4 NWLR (PT.449) @ 276.
The learned Counsel for the Appellant in his reply brief submitted that by the provisions of Section 318 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, Section 84 of the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act, and Section 2(a) of the Public Officers Protection Act, a public officer can be a natural or artificial person. In this case, the Appellant who is an artificial person is a public officer. He cites C.B.N V. AINAMO (2019) 7 NWLR (PT.1672) P.407 AT 419, IBRAHIM V. JSC KADUNA STATE (1998) 14 NWLR (PT.884) P.1.
DECISION/HELD:
In the final analysis, the Court dismissed the appeal.
RATIO:
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – GARNISHEE PROCEEDINGS: Whether the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) is a Public Officer within the meaning of Section 84 of the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act
“Now, the fulcrum of issue 2 is the status of the Central Bank of Nigeria. Whether it is a public officer within the intendment of Section 84 of the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act or not? I am not unaware of the host of decisions of this Court to the effect that the Central Bank of Nigeria is a public officer within the intendment of Section 84(1) of the Act. Amongst these cases are CBN V. ACCESS BANK PLC & ORS (2022) LPELR-57017(CA), CBN V. ABIODUN ARIGBABUWO OSONOKI & ORS (2022) LPELR-57210(CA), CBN V. JAY JAY & ORS (2020) LPELR-52290 (CA), CBN V. SCSBV(NO.1) (2015) 11 NWLR (PT. 1469) 130 AT 154, CBN V. AINAMO (2019) NWLR (PT.1672) 407, amongst others. While the above cases are of the view that the Central Bank Nigeria though an artificial entity is a public officer, some other decisions hold contrary views to the effect that the CBN an artificial entity cannot be a public officer within the contemplation of Section 84(1) of the Sheriffs and Civil Processes Act. Amongst these are CBN v. FALASH ENTERPRISES (NIG) LTD (2017) LPELR-45415(CA), CBN v. KRUGGERBRENT & CO. (NIG) LTD & ORS (2022) LPELR-57571(CA), CBN v. OKECHUKWU & ORS (2021) LPELR-58344(CA), CBN V. ELDER ABEL EZEANYA & ORS (2022) LPELR-57598(CA), ACCESS BANK PLC V. MR UGOCHUKWU GERALD IGWE & ANOR (2022) LPELR-57765(CA); amongst others.
In considering the Section in question, it is instructive to note that the term “public officer” is not defined in the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act, therefore, the Interpretation Act which is enacted for the construction and interpretation of Acts of the National Assembly will be our guide.
Section 18(1) of the Interpretation Act defines “public officer” as a member of the public service of the Federation within the meaning of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 or of the public service of a State”.
Furthermore, Paragraph 19 of the 5th Schedule to the 1999 Constitution (which deals with the Public Officers Code of Conduct) defines a public officer as: “a person holding any of the offices specified in Part II of this Schedule.” Combing through Part II of the 5th schedule the said Schedule excludes Public Institutions.
The Appellant has referred to Section 318(1) of the 1999 Constitution. Public Service of the Federation is defined under Section 318(1) of the 1999 Constitution thus: “means the service of the Federation in any capacity in respect of the Government of the Federation, and includes service as-“. The said Section 318(1) of the Constitution then proceeds to list eight areas in which a person can render service to the Government of the Federation. It is abundantly evident that these provisions refer to service by a natural person as a staff or member in the services of any of the agencies therein listed. This is in line with the rules of interpretation that when the words used in a statute are unambiguous, they must be accorded their liberal and natural meaning. See P.D.P. V. I.N.E.C. (1999) 11 NWLR (PT. 626) 200, AHMED V. KASSIM (1958) SCNLR 28; OLANREWAJU V. GOV., OYO STATE (1992) 9 NWLR (PT. 265) 335, BASSEY V. EDEM (2016) LPELR-42054; F.B.N. PLC V. MAIWADA (2013) 5 NWLR (PT. 1348) 444.
In CBN V. INTERSTELLA COMMUNICATION LTD (2015) 8 NWLR (PT. 1462) 457 this Court per Abba Aji JCA (now JSC), held thus:
“By virtue of Section 2(e) of the Central Bank of Nigeria Act, the Central Bank acts as a banker and provides economic and financial advice to the Federal Government of Nigeria. Further, by Section 36 of the Act, the Bank receives and disburses the Federal Government money and keeps an account thereof. In this case, the relationship between the Appellant and 1st and 2nd Respondents was that of a banker and customer relationship. In other words, the Appellant was not a public officer in the context of the provision of Section 84 of the Sheriffs and Civil Processes Act. So the need to seek the consent of the Attorney General did not arise.”
This position was upheld by the Supreme Court, I am of the considered view that this position has laid to rest the raging controversies on the status of the Central Bank of Nigeria vis-a-vis Section 84(1) of the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act. See CBN v. APPAH (2020) LPELR-51214 (CA). Flowing from the above, I am of the view that the Appellant, not being a public officer, the need to seek consent of the Attorney General of the Federation did not arise.” Per ABUBAKAR, J.C.A.
To read the full judgment or similar judgments, subscribe to Prime or Primsol
