IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA

IN THE KADUNA JUDICIAL DIVISION

HOLDEN AT KADUNA

BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP HON. JUSTICE BASHAR A. ALKALI

DATE: WEDNESDAY 18^TH FEBRUARY, 2026

SUIT NO: NICN/KD/13^M/2025

BETWEEN:

ABDULWAHID AJIBOLA……………………..…JUDGMENT CREDITOR/

RESPONDENT

AND

KADUNA STATE UNIVERSITY……………………JUDGMENT DEBTOR/

APPLICANT

AND

1.      ZENITH BANK PLC

2.     POLARIS BANK PLC………………………………………GARNISHEES

 

REPRSENTATION

M. B. Yusuf Esq for the Judgment Creditor/Applicant/Respondent

T. Apine ESq for the Judgment Debtor/Applicant

Raymond Emeto Esq for the 1^st Garnishee

J. E. Asuquo Esq holding the brief of C. C. Frank Esq for the 2^nd Garnishee

RULING

INTRODUCTION

The Judgment Creditor/Respondent initiated the garnishee proceedings by filing the Motion Exparte on the 13^th of October 2025. Upon hearing the application on the 28^th of October 2025, the court ordered as follows:

1.      An Order Nisi be and is hereby made attaching the sum of N30,471,168.11K (Thirty Million, Four Hundred and Seventy-One Thousand, One Hundred and Sixty-Eight Naira, Eleven Kobo) as contained in Ext. C standing to the credit of the Judgment Debtor/Respondent in the Judgment Debtor’s account with Number 1014574015 and 1310655942 held by Zenith Bank and Account Number 4030020192 held by Polaris Bank Plc in settlement of the Judgment debt in Suit No. NICN/KD/21/2020which the said sum is still outstanding.

 

2.      The garnishee is hereby ordered to appear before this Court and show cause why an order absolute should not be made against them for the payment of the judgment sum.

 

3.      That this order shall be served unto the garnishee and the Judgment Debtor in line with the provisions of the Rules of this Court.

 

4.      I award the sum of N300,000 (Three Hundred Thousand Naira) only as the cost of this garnishee proceedings.

Upon being served with the garnishee order nisi, the Judgment Debtor/Applicant filed an application pursuant to the provisions of sections 21 and 83(1) of the Sheriffs and Civil Process Law. Cap. 141 Laws of Kaduna State of Nigeria 1991, Section 84 Cap. S6 of the laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004, Section 36(1), (2) & (3) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 and also under the inherent powers, sanctions and jurisdiction of this Honourable Court wherein the Judgment Debtor/Applicant prays for the following reliefs:

1.      AN ORDER setting aside the said decision which was entered against the Applicants Ex-parte.

2.      AN ORDER setting aside the Garnishee Order Nisi made by this Honourable Court on the 28^th day of October, 2025. Attached herewith.

3.      AN ORDER Staying all further proceedings in this action pending the hearing and final determination of the instant application.

4.      AND for such further Order or Orders as this Honourable Court may deem fit to make in the circumstances of this case.

The grounds upon which the application is brought as follows:

1.      This Honourable Court lacks the jurisdiction and power to entertain and much less grant the Plaintiff's/Respondent's Motion Ex-parte which was filed on the 13^th day of October, 2025 in its entirety as:-

a.      The necessary condition precedent for the order nisi has not been complied with by the Claimant/Respondents, as no requisite consent to such attachment has been first obtained from the Attorney-General of Kaduna State, since the money liable to be attached by garnishee proceedings is in custody or under the control of a public officer in his official capacity or in custodia legis, pursuant to the mandatory provisions of Section 83 of the Sheriffs and Civil Process Law Cap. 141 of the Laws of the Kaduna State of Nigeria 1991; and also of Section 84 of the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act Cap. S6 of the Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004.

b.     The amount of the monies now sought to be made a Garnishee Order absolute actually belongs to and or represents partial arrears of two months' salary of some staff of the applicants. Therefore, the said funds do not belong to the applicants but to a third party.

On the 13^th of January 2026, the application came up for hearing and counsel for the Judgment Debtor/Applicant Nuhu Ibrahim, Esq, identified and adopted the Motion on Notice together with the supporting Affidavit and written address filed on the 13^th of November 2025 and Further and Better Affidavit and Reply on Point of Law filed on the 9^th of January 2026 and urged the Court to grant this application.

Counsel for the Judgment Creditor/Respondent, M. B. Yusuf, Esq identified Counter-Affidavit and Written Address filed on the 6^th of January 2026 in opposition to the application and adopted the same in urging the Court to dismiss this application.

AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF THE APPLICATION

Ishaya Bako, a litigation secretary in the law firm of Counsel for the Judgment Debtor/Applicant, deposed to the affidavit in support of the application. Attached with the affidavit are annexures A and B.

The deponent stated that the judgment delivered on the 28^th of October 2025 was entirely obtained without obtaining the necessary consent of the Honourable Attorney General. The amount of money in the said various accounts now sought to be subject of the instant Garnishee proceedings represents part of the unpaid salary for academic staff for June 2022 of Applicant's teeming staff. Even before the Order Nisi of this Honourable Court which was made on the 28^th day of October, 2025 vouchers, cheques and all other necessary documents for payment have been prepared by Bursary department of Kaduna State University.

It was some fifth columnists in the employment of the Applicants who surreptitiously leaked the details of the said Account to the Respondents for a fee. The Respondent was able to get all the details leading to the Order Nisi made by this Honourable Court by fraudulent and illicit means. The said Order Nisi has now been levied on the lawful earnings of a third party. If the said Order Nisi is made absolute, third parties who have nothing to do with the dispute which is subject matter of this action between the parties herein would be adversely affected. All the amount of monies now in issue is in the custody of a public officer in his official capacity.

Before the garnishee proceedings now in issue which led to the decision and Order of this Honourable Court was made on the said 28th day of October, 2025 no prior consent of the Honourable Attorney- General of Kaduna State was first obtained for the attachment of the monies now in issue which is at all times material to this action under the control of a public officer in his official capacity or in custodia legis. It would be in the best interest of justice and also that of all the parties herein not make the order nisi absolute. It would serve the best interest of justice in this matter to set aside the Garnishee Order Nisi made by this Honourable Court on the 28^th day of October,2025.

AFFIDAVIT IN OPPOSITION TO THE APPLICATION

Maryam Yusif, a litigation secretary in the law firm of counsel for the Judgment Creditor/Respondent, deposed to the Counter-Affidavit in opposition of this application.

She stated that the Judgment Debtor/Applicant filed a Motion on Notice dated 13^th November, 2025 which was served on their office on the 5^th of January, 2026 praying this Honourable Court to set aside the Garnishee Order Nisi granted on the 28^th of October 2025. The basis of the said application is the allegation that the consent of the Attorney General of Kaduna State was not first sought and obtained pursuant to Section 83 of the Sheriffs and Civil Process Law of Kaduna State and the money in the Garnishees' custody belongs or represent partial arrears of two (2) months salary of some staff of the Applicant hence, the said fund belongs to a third party.

The Garnishees in this case Zenith Bank Plc and Polaris Bank Plc are private commercial banks incorporated under the Companies and Allied Matters Act and duly licensed by the Central Bank of Nigeria. The said Garnishees are not State Government Ministries, Departments, Agencies or Parastatals, and they are not Federal Government agencies either. The requirement of obtaining consent of the Attorney General under Section 83 of the Sheriffs and Civil Process Law does not apply to garnishee proceedings involving private commercial banks.

Paragraphs 5b, c & e of the Judgment Debtor/Applicant's Affidavit in support are untrue, a mischievous fact and very embarrassing to deposed to the facts that the money is for unpaid salary of academic staff for the month of June, 2022 and the Exhibit A is an afterthought and also, the Judgment Creditor/Respondent take exception from paragraph 5e. The Garnishees have already filed their respective affidavits to show cause before this Honourable Court.

The Garnishees confirmed the existence of credit balances in the Judgment Debtor's accounts sufficient to satisfy the Judgment sum and the awarded cost amounting to N30,771,168.11 (Thirty Million, Seven Hundred and Seventy-One Thousand, One Hundred and Sixty-Eight Naira, Eleven Kobo).

The reaction of the Garnishees confirming the attachable funds is clear evidence that the Garnishee Order Nisi was competently issued by this Honourable Court. It does not lies in the mouth of the Applicant's Deponent to alleged that the Order NISI was obtained by fraud, the Applicant, having lie on oath that the Applicant does not have money to pay the Judgment sum and equally failed to deposit the money to an interest yielding account of the Chief Registrar of this Honourable Court as per the order of this Honourable Court made on the 29^th of May, 2025.

It is not also the business of the Deponent of the Applicant to suggest where the details of account was found as most importantly, the account is accurate and correct. That the Judgment Debtor/Applicant is merely attempting to delay, obstruct, and frustrate the lawful enforcement of a valid judgment of this Honourable Court. The applicant has not shown any exceptional or legal basis for setting aside the Garnishee Order Nisi. This application is aimed solely at preventing the Judgment Creditor/Respondent from enjoying the fruits of his judgment delivered since 23^rd January, 2025.

LEGAL SUBMISSION OF THE APPLICANT

Counsel for the Judgment Debtor/Applicant nominated a lone issue for the determination of this application, to wit:

Whether the decision of this Honourable Court made on the 29^th day of May, 2025 and the Garnishee Order Nisi granted on the 28^th day of October, 2025 relative thereto ought to be set aside?

Counsel for the Judgment Debtor/Applicant submitted that the Applicant has placed enough material by the deposition in paragraphs 5-9 in support of the present application the clear and cogent reason by way of affidavit evidence upon which this Court can rely and thus exercise its discretion in their favour in granting the instant application. The decision in Alao v ACB Ltd (2000) 6 SC (pt. 1) 27 is not applicable only to the Supreme Court of Nigeria but also extends to all Courts of record in the country. Cited Obayiuwana V. Ede [1988] 1 NWLR (Pt.535? 670, particularly at pages 679-680, where Musdapher, J.C.A held; it is indisputable that a Court of Law is competent to set aside its own judgment in a number of circumstances, in the instant case where the judgment obtained was a nullity it is one of such circumstances where, however the judgment or order is affected and infected with a fundamental error, the party affected is entitled to ex debito justitae to have it set aside, and the Court has an inherent jurisdiction to do so.

Submitted further in that Onanaku V. Akabue [2009] 15 NWLR (Pt.116? 539 where the Court of Appeal held per Eko J.C.A (as he then was) at page 553 paragraphs A-D in the following terms, that a court of law will set aside its own judgment:

a.      When the judgment was obtained as a result of fraud perpetrated by one of the parties;

b.     When the judgment is completely a nullity ab initio;

c.      When it is obvious on the face of the record that the court was misled into giving judgment under the mistaken belief that the parties consented to it when in fact they did not.

Submitted that what remains certain and unassailable in the present circumstances of this action is that the money which is liable to be attached by Garnishee proceedings of the 28^th day of October, 2025 are public funds which is in the custody of and under the control of a public officer in his official capacity as such.

The Garnishee Order Nisi was made by this Honourable Court on the 28^th day of October, 2025 in order to attach the amount of money now in issue, the prior consent of the Attorney-General of Kaduna State was never first obtained by the Respondents who were by the mandatory requirements of the law obligated to do so. The position of the law having due regard to the facts and circumstances of the present application is now well settled, to the effect that the consent of the Attorney-General must be first obtained before the issuance of garnishee order nisi can be validly made to have any legal effect pursuant to the clear and mandatory provisions of Section 83 of the Sheriffs and Civil Process Law Cap. 141 of the Laws of the Kaduna State of Nigeria 1991; and also of Section 84 of the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act Cap.S6 of the Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004 which made the granting of such consent sine qua non.

Submitted that all the superior Courts of record in this country have now held, while interpreting the provisions of section 84 of Cap.S6 (supra), in unison that compliance with the said provision is a condition precedent to the validity of any garnishee order nisi where public funds as in the case now at hand is involved. Cited Onjewu V. Kogi State Ministry of Commerce &Industry [2003] 10 NWLR (Part 827) 40; Government of Akwa Ibom State V. Powercom Nigeria Ltd [2004] 6 NWLR (Part 868) 202; Attorney General Benue State & 8 Ors. (2011) LPELR-4774(CA); Central Bank of Nigeria V. Hydro Air PTY Ltd (2014) 1 LPELR-22587(CA); CBN V. AMCON & ORS (2017) LPELR-42986(CA); and Fayose v. EFCC & ANOR?2018) LPELR-46474 (CA).

LEGAL SUBMISSION OF THE RESPONDENT

Counsel for the Judgment Creditor/Respondent nominated a lone issue for the determination of this application, to wit:

Whether the Judgment Debtor/Applicant has shown any legally cognizable ground to warrant this Honourable Court setting aside the Garnishee Order Nisi made on 28^th October, 2025.

Submitted that Section 83 Sheriffs and Civil Process Law does not apply to private commercial banks. The only ground canvassed by the Applicant is that the consent of the Attorney General was not sought before commencing the garnishee process. However, Section 83 of the Sheriffs and Civil Process Law (SCPL) applies only where the funds sought to be attached are in the custody of: a public officer, a public institution, a State or Federal agency, and a government department or ministry.

Private commercial banks such as Zenith Bank Plc and Polaris Bank Plc are none of these. The courts have repeatedly held that consent of the attorney general is not required where the Garnishee is a private commercial bank. See C.B.N. V. Interstella Communications Ltd (2015) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1449) 276, (2018) ALL FWLR (Pt. 930) 422 where the Supreme Court drew a clear distinction between public institutions and private commercial banks. In Purification Tech. (Nig.) Ltd v. A-G Lagos State (2004) 9 NWLR (Pt. 879) 665, where it was emphasized that the purpose of requiring the AG's consent is to protect public funds, not private funds or bank deposits.

The consent of the Attorney General of Kaduna State is wholly irrelevant in this garnishee proceeding, as the garnishees are not public institution or public officer within the contemplation of Section 318(1) of the Constitution as amended. Submitted that the Garnishees have already shown cause and admitted attachable funds. The Garnishees filed their respective affidavits to show cause, Zenith Bank Plc on 11^th November, 2025 and Polaris Bank Plc on 24^th November, 2025, both confirming that the Judgment Debtor/Applicant maintains accounts with credit balances sufficient to satisfy the judgment sum. It is therefore an afterthought and very embarrassing for the Applicant to depose that the fund with the Garnishees are unpaid salary for academic staff for the month of June, 2022, hence the fund belonging to a third party.

The effect of showing cause is that the Garnishee Order Nisi was properly and validly issued. The applicant's motion is overtaken by events. Once the Garnishees have shown cause and affirmed that funds belonging to the Judgment Debtor exist, the process is complete and ripe for the making of an Order Absolute. The application is an abuse of process aimed at frustrating enforcement of judgment. A successful litigant is entitled to the fruits of his judgment. Cited ADEGBANKE V. OJELABI (2023) 4 NWLR (Pt.1875)481.

ISSUE FOR THE DETERMINATION

Having carefully gone through the processes filed by the parties in respect of this application, and the legal submissions of counsel, I am of the firm view that issue nominated by the Judgment Creditor/Respondent is apt and concise for the consideration of this application, and I accordingly adopt the same in determining this application

Whether the Judgment Debtor/Applicant has shown any legally cognizable ground to warrant this Honourable Court setting aside the Garnishee Order Nisi made on 28^th October, 2025.

COURT’S DECISION

The Judgment Debtor/Applicant filed this application to set aside the order nisi granted by the Court on the 28^th of October 2025, following the application exparte by the Judgment Creditor/Applicant to garnishee the judgment sum awarded by the Court in the judgment of this Court delivered on the 23^rd of January 2025. The ground of the application is that the Judgment Creditor/Respondent did not obtain the consent of the Attorney General of Kaduna State before commencing the garnishee proceedings.

The ground of this application touches on the jurisdiction of this Court. The matter of jurisdiction is not at large; the Courts have, in surfeit of cases, developed and reiterated the basic condiments to determine whether a court has jurisdiction to entertain a suit. In NWORKA V. ONONEZE-MADU (2019) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1672) 422 P. 438, paras. D-F, where the Supreme Court held that:

This position of the law has long been settled in this case as to the principles which must be satisfied before the court can competently entertain a suit:

a.      The court is properly constituted as regards members and qualification of the members of the bench, such that no member is disqualified for one reason or the other;

 

b.     The subject matter of the case is within its jurisdiction, and there is no feature in the case, which prevents the court from exercising jurisdiction; and

 

c.      The case comes before the court by due process of law and upon fulfillment of any condition precedent to the exercise of jurisdiction.

It is important to clearly distinguish between substantive and procedural jurisdiction. The procedure for invoking the jurisdiction of a court differs from the court's power to decide matters that have been formally presented for its decision and are within its jurisdiction. Matters that define the rights and obligations of the parties involved in the dispute are considered substantive matters, as defined by substantive law. In contrast, matters that aid the court or tribunal in adjudicating the issues at hand are classified as procedural matters. Following this classification, if a party fails to comply with a condition precedent before initiating a court action, it pertains to procedural jurisdiction rather than substantive jurisdiction: see the case of C.B.N. V. OCHIFE (2025) 12 NWLR (Pt. 2000) 1 Pp. 77-78, paras. G-E. The ground of the objection to the jurisdiction of this Court touches on the procedure as contained in condition (c) stated above.

A garnishee proceeding is one of the ways of executing a judgment. It is the procedure whereby the judgment creditor obtains the order of the court to attach any debt owing to the judgment debtor from any person or body within the jurisdiction of the court to satisfy the judgment debt. That process is known as “attachment of debt”. It is a separate and distinct action between the judgment creditor and the person or body holding custody of the assets of the judgment debtor, although it flows from the judgment that pronounced the debt owing. A successful party, in his quest to move fast against the assets of the judgment debtor usually makes an application ex parte for an order in that direction. If the application ex parte is adjudged to be meritorious, the Judge makes an order which is technically known as a “garnishee order nisi” attaching the debt due or accruing to the judgment debtor from such person or body who from the moment of making the order is called the garnishee. The order also carries a directive on the garnishee to appear and show cause why he should not pay to the judgment creditor the debt owed by it to the judgment debtor. The garnishee must appear before the court. If he does not appear in obedience to the order nisi or does not dispute liability, the court may then make the order nisi absolute pursuant to the provisions of section 86 of the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act. 

Ordinarily, garnishee proceedings are usually between the Judgment Creditor and the Garnishees. But after the garnishee order nisi is served on the judgment debtor, the subsequent hearing envisages a tripartite proceeding in which the three parties - the judgment creditor, the garnishee, and the judgment debtor - are represented. At that stage of the proceedings, the three parties can be heard by the court before an order absolute is made, depending on the facts and circumstances of the case: see the case of SANI V. K.S.H.A. (2021) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1773) 422 and GWEDE V. D.S.H.A (2019) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1673) 30 Pp. 54-55, paras. G-B

The Judgment Debtor/Applicant submitted that the Judgment Creditor/Respondent ought to obtain consent of the Attorney General of Kaduna State before commencing the garnishee proceedings. I think, in the circumstances, the Judgment Debtor/Applicant can be heard, given the ground of the application. It is imperative to pluck it out, verbatim ac literatim, where it is ingrained firmly in the statute book. Section 84 of the Sheriff and Civil Process Act provides that:

(1) Where money liable to be attached by garnishee proceedings is in the custody or under the control of a public officer in his official capacity or in custodia legis, the order nisi shall not be made under the provisions of the last preceding section unless consent to such attachment is first obtained from the appropriate officer in the case of money in the custody or control of a public officer or of the court in the case of money in custodia legis, as the case may be

(2) In such cases the order of notice must be served on such public officer or on the registrar of the court, as the case may be.

(3) In this section, "appropriate officer" means-

(a) in relation to money which is in the custody of a public officer who holds a public office in the public service of the Federation, the Attorney-General of the Federation;

(b) in relation to money which is in the custody of a public officer who holds a public office in the public service of the State, the Attorney-General of the State.

The question which comes to mind here is who is a public officer as used in Section 84 of the Act cited above. The answer to this poser is not far-fetched. Section 18 of the Interpretation Act is plausible in this regard; Section 18(1) of the Interpretation Act defines the term “public officer” as a member of the public service of the Federation within the meaning of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria or of the public service of a State.

By virtue of Section 318 (1) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, “public service of the Federation” means the service of the Federation in any capacity in respect of the Government of the Federation and includes service as:

a.      clerk or other staff of the National Assembly or of each House of the National Assembly;

 

b.     member of staff of the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeal, the Federal High Court, the National Industrial Court, the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja, Sharia Court of Appeal of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja, the Customary Court of Appeal of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja, or other Courts established for the Federation by the Constitution and by an Act of National Assembly;

 

c.      member of staff of any commission or authority established for the Federation by the Constitution or by an Act of the National Assembly;

 

d.      staff of any Area Council;

 

e.      staff of any statutory corporation established by an Act of the National Assembly;

 

f.       staff of any educational institution established or financed principally by a Government of the Federation;

 

g.      staff of any company or enterprise in which the Government of the Federation or its agency owns controlling shares or interest; and

 

h.     members or officers of the armed forces of the Federation of the Nigeria Police Force or other government security agencies established by law.

See also KSJSC V. TOLANI (2019) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1671) 382.

In this Garnishee proceeding, Zenith Bank Plc and Polaris Bank Plc are the garnishees before this Court. The relevant question that needs to be resolved is; can the monies in these Garnishee Banks (Zenith Bank Plc and Polaris Bank Plc) be said to be in the custody or under the control of public officers in their official capacities? One obvious aspect to note is that Zenith Bank Plc and Polaris Bank Plc are all commercial banks incorporated under the Companies and Allied Matters Act. These banks cannot by any stretch of the imagination, be referred to as "public officers in their official capacities."

It is logical and common sense supports the idea since they (Garnishee banks) are not public officers then monies deposited into their vaults by whosoever, either public officers or private persons, are in the custody or under the control of the said commercial banks, which are the Garnishee Bankers in this suit. It follows therefore, that, the monies so attached by the Order Nisi are in the custody and under control of the said Garnishee Banks. They are not public officers as defined by Section 84 of the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act, Section 18(1) of the Interpretation Act, and Section 318 (1) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, therefore, the said Section 84 (supra) is not applicable in the instant suit.

In PURIFICATION TECHNIQUES (NIG) LTD V. ATTORNEY GENERAL, LAGOS STATE (2004)9 NWLR (pt. 879) 665 at 680-681 paragraphs D-E the Court of Appeal held that:

The monies in the hands of a garnishee bank are not in the custody or control of the Judgment Debtors/Customers. Such monies remain the property in the custody and control of the bankers; and payable to the Judgment Debtors until a demand is made. In the instant case, the monies held by the Respondent in the Garnishee Bankers are not under the custody or control of the respondent, a public officer. Consequently, such monies are not subject to the provisions of Section 84 of the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act, as contended by the Respondent.

In UTAVIE V. CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (2020) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1744) 368 P. 387 para C– F where the Court of Appeal held that:

The relevant question that needs to be resolved is; Can the monies in these garnishee banks (Sterling Bank Plc, Sky Bank Plc; Wema Bank Plc and Diamond Bank Plc) be said to be in the custody or under the control of public officers in their official capacities? One obvious aspect to note is that the above stated garnishee banks are all commercial banks. They cannot by any stretch of the imagination be referred to as “public officers in their official capacities.” It is logical and common sense supports the idea since they (garnishee banks) are not public officers then monies deposited into their vaults by whosoever either public officers or private persons are in the custody or under the control of the said commercial banks which are the garnishee bankers in this suit. It follows therefore that the monies so attached by the order nisi are in the custody and under control of the said garnishee banks. They are not public officers as defined by section 84 of the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act, therefore the said section 84(supra) is not applicable in the instant suit. 

In UTAVIE V. CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (supra) P. 388 para A – C where the Court of Appeal held that:

Supposing the monies sought to be attached by garnishee proceedings are in custody or control of the Central Bank of Nigeria or a government ministry or parastatal, for example, then the order nisi cannot be made unless consent to such attachment is first sought and obtained from the office of the Attorney-General of the Federation. That is the purport of section 84 of the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act. But as I stated above since the monies sought to be attached via garnishee proceedings are in the custody and control of Commercial Bankers, then section 84 of the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act, 2004 is not applicable and I so hold.

It is crucial to bring to the fore that the requirement of the consent of the attorney general, whether of the state or the federation, where a garnishee is the Central Bank of Nigeria, is no longer the law. That position is stale and should be buried by any sentient litigant and counsel. The Central Bank of Nigeria, being a banker for the Ministries, Departments and Agencies (MDAs), is not a public officer. The fiduciary relationship between the Central Bank of Nigeria and the firmament of MDAs is that of a banker and its customers. By the provision of Sections 2(e) and 36 of the CBN Act, the CBN acts as a banker to the Federal Government and its agencies; thus, government bank accounts are not to be given any special consideration. Such a requirement was laid to rest in the recent decision of the Supreme Court in the case of CENTRAL BANK OF NIGERIA VS LIDAN ENGINEERING LIMITED & 6 ORS (unreported) (SC/CV/82/2021) delivered on the 16^th of January 2026, where the Court unanimously held on pages 21 – 22 that:

The fifth respondent, Customs, Immigration and Prisons Service Board, is an agency of the Federal Government per excellence. In wearing the toga of that glorious status, it comes squarely within the firmament of Ministries, Departments and Agencies (MDAs) that are mandated to maintain accounts with the Appellant under the canopy of Treasury Single Account (TSA) policy of the Federal Government of Nigeria. The import of the fiduciary relationship inter parties is obvious. The appellant is not a public officer in the instant case as contemplated by the provision of Section 84(1) of SCPA and anatomised in CBN v. Interstella Comm. Ltd (supra). The settled posture of the law is that once a word or phrase in an enactment has been judicially or statutorily defined, it bears that meaning assigned to it and sheds/drops its ordinary or technical meaning. Put simply, the moment a word or phrase has received a judicial explanation or definition, a fortiori from the apex court, the courts are bound to kowtow to that meaning in subsequent proceedings. This court, therefore, has a bounden duty to follow and apply the definition of a public officer, which, in deserving circumstances, excludes the appellant, under the provision of Section 84(1) of SCPA. In effect, the learned appellant’s counsel’s dazzling contention, which clothed the appellant with the undeserved garment of a public officer, is a quintessence of dressing the appellant in ‘borrowed robes’ which, to all intents and purposes, is a flagrant defilement of the basic tenets of the law as chronicled supra. The bald fact is that the appellant falls outside the perimeter of a public officer, as envisaged under the prescription of Section 84(1) of the SCPA, given the peculiar circumstances of the case at hand, should shape and define the misfortune of the vexed issue. The reason is not far-fetched in a garnishee proceeding where a garnishee is a public under Section 84(1) of SCPA. It vaporises where the law disrobes a garnishee of the dignified status of a public officer as in the instant case.

But as I stated above since the monies sought to be attached via garnishee proceedings are in the custody and control of commercial bankers, then Section 84 of the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act, 2004 is not applicable, the Judgment Debtor/Applicant cannot elevate the status of a private commercial bank to the status of a public officer, I so hold.

Without gainsaying, the Judgment Debtor/Applicant, by virtue of Section 18(1) of the Interpretation Act, Section 318 (1) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria and KSJSC V. TOLANI (2019), is a public officer. I am not aware of any law, whether statutory or judicial authorities, which requires a judgment creditor to obtain the consent of the attorney general of either the federation or a state before enforcing a judgment against a public officer, that is, the Judgment Debtor. The judgment of the Court is immediately enforceable as per the terms of the judgment, no matter whose ox is gored.

Most importantly, the Judgment Debtor/Applicant stated in its affidavit in support of this application that some fifth columnists in the employment of the Judgment Debtor/Applicant leaked the details of the accounts to the Judgment Creditor/Respondent for fees. The Judgment Creditor/Respondent got the details leading to the order nisi made by the Court. I do not think it is the business of the Court to meddle in how the Judgment Creditor/Respondent got the accounts of the Judgment Debtor/Applicant, leading to this garnishee proceeding. In C.B.N. V. OCHIFE (supra) 1 the Supreme Court warned that the practice of counsel filing garnishee proceedings against numerous banks in a hit or miss endeavour to get hold of the judgment debt from whosoever must be deprecated. Judgment creditors must do their due diligence before they commence garnishee proceedings to ensure that they file proceedings against persons actually holding money belonging to the judgment debtor. Getting the account details of the Judgment Debtor/Applicant shows that the Judgment Creditor/Respondent is very diligent in prosecuting the enforcement proceeding, and how the Judgment Creditor/Respondent got the account details of the Judgment Debtor/Applicant is none of the business of this Court. I so hold.

In view of the foregoing, the lone issue for the determination is resolved in favour of the Judgment Creditor/Respondent; consequently, this application lacks merit, and it is accordingly dismissed. I so hold.

Ruling is entered accordingly.

 

HON. JUSTICE B. A. ALKALI

HON. JUDGE

NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA

KADUNA JUDICIAL DIVISION