WHETHER THE COURT CAN GRANT A GARNISHEE ORDER ABSOLUTE AGAINST A PARTY WHO WAS NOT INCLUDED IN PROCEEDINGS LEADING TO THE GRANT OF AN ORDER NISI

CASE TITLE: CBN v. EZE & ORS (2021) LPELR-55554(CA)

JUDGMENT DATE: 15TH SEPTEMBER, 2021

PRACTICE AREA: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

LEAD JUDGMENT: OLABODE ABIMBOLA ADEGBEHINGBE, J.C.A.

SUMMARY OF JUDGMENT:

INTRODUCTION

This is an appeal against the decision of the Federal High Court.

The 1st respondent in this appeal filed a suit no. NICN/ABJ/309/2012 against the 3rd-6th respondents. It was a suit arising from his employment. Judgment in the suit was given in favour of the 1st respondent by the trial Court per Hon. Justice E. D. Esele, on 29/01/2014. ​In attempting to enforce the judgment of the trial Court and to enjoy the fruit thereof, the 1st respondent filed an application for issuance of order of garnishee nisi against some named sixteen financial institutions suspected of having custody of funds, belonging to the 2nd-6th respondents. The 1st respondent filed the motion ex-parte initiating the process of garnishee. The trial Court per O. A. Shogbola, J. made an order nisi, in respect of the application. Both the Appellant and the 2nd respondent were not named in the suit at that stage.

The original sixteen garnishees, severally, filed processes before the trial Court. The trial Court determined the proceedings, as it affected each of the original sixteen garnishees and discharged its order nisi against each of the sixteen original respondents.

After the trial Court had dealt with the respective cases of the original sixteen garnishees, the 1st respondent placed another motion ex-parte before the trial Court, in which the 1st respondent prayed that the appellant should be joined as 17th garnishee and the 2nd respondent should be joined as the 18th garnishee, in the proceedings before the trial Court, among other prayers. The trial Court granted the prayers placed before it.

​On 27/04/2015, the 1st respondent’s counsel informed the trial Court that he received an affidavit of cause from the appellant and that he had filed a counter-affidavit. The Court adjourned proceedings for ruling. When the matter came up before the trial Court for ruling, the Court read its ruling in part, stopped and adjourned proceedings. Upon resumption, the trial Court made its order nisi in the garnishee proceedings before it, order absolute against the appellant in this appeal as the appellant was the 17th garnishee before the trial Court.

The appellant thus filed an appeal in the Court of Appeal.

ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION

The Court determined the appeal based on the following issues for determination:

1. Whether in view of the provisions of Section 251(1)(p)(q) & (r), Section 254(c)(1) of the 1999 Constitution and Order VIII Rule 2(A) & (B) of the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act, Cap. S6 LFN 2004, ​the Court below had requisite jurisdiction to hear and determine the garnishee proceedings as constituted before it and whether the said order absolute was made in breach of the appellant’s right of fair hearing.

2. Whether the Court below was right in law when in declining to hear the appellant’s challenge to its jurisdiction, proceeded to make absolute the order nisi, thereby breaching the appellant’s fundamental right to fair hearing.

3. Whether the learned trial Judge had not upon the discharge of the garnishees before her in suit no. NICN/ABJ/43M/14 become functus officio and therefore lacked jurisdiction to join the appellant herein to the suit and make the order nisi, absolute against her.

DECISION/HELD

In the final analysis, the Court of Appeal held that the appeal succeeded in part. The ruling of the trial Court, dated 20/05/2015, by which it granted garnishee order absolute against the appellant was reversed and set aside. The garnishee proceedings instituted by the 1st respondent against the appellant before the trial Court was struck out.

RATIOS:

• JURISDICTION – JURISDICTION OF THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT: Whether the National Industrial Court has jurisdiction on garnishee matters
• JURISDICTION – JURISDICTION OF THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT: Whether the National Industrial Court has jurisdiction over labour and employment related matters where an agency of the Federal Government is a party; whether the same Court can also handle Garnishee Proceedings
• PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – GARNISHEE PROCEEDINGS: Whether the Court can grant a garnishee order absolute against a party who was not included in proceedings leading to the grant of an order nisi