Understanding The Competency of Garnishee Proceedings: Exploring The Role of Court Judgments in Debt Attachment

CASE TITLE: GOVERNOR OF OYO STATE & ORS v. AJUWON & ORS (2023) LPELR-61499(CA)

JUDGMENT DATE: 8TH DECEMBER, 2023

JUSTICES: HARUNA SIMON TSAMMANI, JCA
MOHAMMED MUSTAPHA, JCA
DANLAMI ZAMA SENCHI, JCA

DIVISION: ABUJA

PRACTICE AREA: GARNISHEE PROCEEDINGS

FACTS:

This appeal emanated from a ruling by the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja, in a case involving the Governor of Oyo State and the dissolution of democratically elected Local Government Councils. The Governor dissolved these councils and replaced them with non-elected Transition/Caretaker Committees, contrary to a Court order.

The Supreme Court had earlier affirmed the illegality of the Governor’s actions and ordered the payment of salaries and allowances to the affected parties. Subsequently, a garnishee proceeding was initiated by the judgment creditors to attach funds from the Governor’s bank accounts.

The appellants, dissatisfied with the garnishee order nisi, applied for leave to pay the outstanding judgment debt in installments. The trial Court granted part of the application, ordering an immediate payment of a specified amount and subsequent quarterly payments. Furthermore, the Court made the garnishee order nisi absolute against one of the banks (4th garnishee), directing the payment from the funds in its custody.

Dissatisfied with part of the said decision, the 1st -7th Appellants appealed.

ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION:

The Court determined the appeal on the following issues, viz:

1. Whether the 1st–11th Respondents/Judgment Creditors can enforce the judgment of the Oyo State High Court of Justice in Suit No. 1/347/2019 registered at the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory by garnishee proceedings and the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory had jurisdiction to make the garnishee order absolute contained in the ruling of April 27, 2023, pursuant to the application of the 1st–11th Respondents/Judgment Creditors when judgment sum cannot be located in the judgment sought to be enforced?
2. Whether the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory had jurisdiction to grant the Garnishee Order absolute on the 27th of April, 2023, when the Garnishee Order nisi made by the Learned Trial Judge on the 2nd of March, 2023, was granted without the consent of the Attorney-General of Oyo State being first obtained to such attachment as required by Section 84 of the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act Cap S6 Laws of the Federation?

COUNSEL SUBMISSIONS:

Learned Senior Counsel for the Appellants argued that it is established principle of law that in Garnishee proceedings, the judgment sum must be clearly stated before enforcement can be sought through the Court. He cited relevant cases to support this position. Additionally, he pointed out that a previous ruling by the High Court of Oyo State had refused a garnishee application because the judgment did not specify any sum of money to be paid by the judgment debtor.

In conclusion, Learned Counsel urged the Court to find that the Respondents cannot enforce the judgment through garnishee proceedings as the judgment sum is not clearly stated, and the Federal Capital Territory High Court lacked jurisdiction to make the garnishee order.

Learned Senior Counsel for the Respondents countered that the judgment sum was indeed ascertainable based on evidence presented, including exhibits and motions. He argued that the Appellants themselves had acknowledged the amount in issue, and therefore, their appeal was filed in bad faith.

Furthermore, it was argued that the reliance on certain cases by the Appellants was misplaced, as those cases were not directly applicable to the present situation. He urged the Court to reject the Appellants’ contention that the judgment sum was not ascertainable, asserting that it was a deliberate attempt to undermine the administration of justice.

DECISION/HELD:

In the final analysis, the Court dismissed the appeal.

RATIO:

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – GARNISHEE PROCEEDINGS: Whether an application for garnishee proceedings is competent in the absence of a Judgment of Court pronouncing the debt which the applicant seeks to be attached

“Let me state that Garnishee proceedings only come into play where there is a Judgment of a Court of law pronouncing the debt sought to be attached. In other words, no application for Garnishee proceedings is competent in the absence of a Judgment of Court pronouncing the debt to which the applicant seeks to be attached. See Section 83(1) of the Sheriff and Civil Process Act, which provides:

The Court may, upon the ex-parte application of any person who is entitled to the benefit of a judgment for the recovery or payment of money, either before or after any oral examination of the debtor liable under such judgment and upon affidavit by the applicant 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 cost of the garnishee proceedings and by the same or 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 cost aforesaid.” Per SENCHI, J.C.A.

To read the full judgment or similar judgments, subscribe to Prime or Primsol