BACK

NICN - JUDGMENT

                        IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA

IN THE ABUJA JUDICIAL DIVISION

HOLDEN AT ABUJA

 

BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP HONOURABLE JUSTICE O. Y. ANUWE

 

Dated: 25th February 2026                            SUIT NO: NICN/ABJ/437M/2024

 

Between:

 

Abed Oguchi Anyadike                                                -                       Claimant/JC/Respondent

 

And

 

The Clerk of the National Assembly                     -                   Defendant/JD/Applicant

 

And

 

Zenith Bank Plc.                                                 -                       Garnishee

 

Representation:

Kingsley Nwangwu, with him, Anyadike Izudukwu for the Claimant/Judgment Creditor/Respondent

L. U. Imo-Oje, with the brief of Prof Kathleen Okafor SAN for the Applicant

Charles Yoila, with him, H. M. Musa and Godswill Onyegbu for the Judgment Debtor/Applicant

 

   RULING

After this Court made a Garnishee Order Nisi on 23rd January 2025, the Garnishee, Zenith Bank Plc, filed an affidavit to show cause on 12th February 2025 wherein it disclosed that the judgment debtor, that is the Clerk of the National Assembly, maintains account number 1310349014 with the Garnishee and that the account has the sum of N10,715,756.14 in it. Upon this disclosure, a Garnishee Order Absolute was made on 24th February 2025. Three motions were thereafter filed in the matter. The first motion was filed on 11th February 2025 by the judgment debtor while the two other motions were filed on 3rd March 2025 for the “National Assembly Library Trust Fund”.

 

MOTIONS OF THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY LIBRARY TRUST FUND

Let me first consider the two motions filed on 3rd March 2025. In one of the motions, the relief sought is for an order staying of execution of the judgment and Garnishee Order Absolute of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria delivered by his Lordship, Honourable Justice O. Y. Anuwe on 5th July, 2024 Suit No: NICN/ABJ/161/2019 and 24 February, 2025 Suit No: NICN/ABJ/437M/2024 respectively between Abed Oguche Anyadike V. The Clerk Of The National Assembly, pending the hearing and determination of the Applicant's appeal pending before the Court of Appeal. In the other motion, the relief sought is for an order setting aside the Ruling/Garnishee Order Absolute made by the National Industrial Court of Nigeria (Coram: The Honourable Justice O. Y. ANUWE) in a ruling delivered in Suit No: NICN/ABJ/161/2019 Motion No: NICN/ABJ/437M/2024 on 24th February 2025. Both motions were signed by Prof. Kathleen Okafor SAN for “National Assembly Library Trust Fund”. The affidavits in support of the motions were deposed by Olisakwe Okafor, a Legal Practitioner in Dr. Kathleen Okafor Chambers, the law firm retained by the National Assembly Library Trust Fund to represent it in this proceeding. The deponent also said he has the authority of the National Assembly Library Trust Fund to depose to the Affidavits.

 

The judgment creditor filed counter affidavits on 17th March 2025 to oppose the motions. The counter affidavits were deposed by Deborah Obiokoli, a Legal Practitioner in the law firm of counsel for the judgment creditor.

 

I have read the grounds of the motions, the affidavits and written addresses in support of the motions. It is clear to me, from these processes, that the applicant in the two motions and the person who sought the above reliefs is the National Assembly Library Trust Fund. However, the National Assembly Library Trust Fund was not a party in the initial suit nor is it a party in the garnishee proceedings in respect of which these motions were filed. There is also no order of this Court sought and obtained to join the National Assembly Library Trust Fund as a party interested in these garnishee proceedings. I have seen that no prayer was even included in the instant motions seeking on order to join the National Assembly Library Trust Fund in these proceedings. Thus, both motions filed on 3rd March 2025 were filed by a person not known to the garnishee proceedings. Without first applying to be joined and properly so joined as a party in these proceedings, the National Assembly Library Trust Fund does not have the competence to bring these types of motions before the Court to set aside or stay the execution of an order of Court. In my view, the motions are not competent.

 

Upon reading the grounds of the motions, the affidavits and written addresses in support of the motions, I observed that what was contended on behalf of the National Assembly Library Trust Fund is that the National Assembly Library Trust Fund is a separate Legal entity from the National Assembly but the attached funds in the account with the garnishee belong to the National Assembly Library Trust Fund and the funds cannot be used to pay the debt of the National Assembly. In other words, the National Assembly Library Trust Fund is making a claim of ownership to money the garnishee is ordered to pay to the judgment creditor. The case of the National Assembly Library Trust Fund canvassed in the motions is one which ought to be brought under interpleader proceedings pursuant to Order 56 of the Rules of this Court.

 

On the whole, the motions filed on 3rd March 2025 on behalf of the National Assembly Library Trust Fund are not competent. The motions are struck out.

 

MOTION OF THE JUDGMENT DEBTOR

The motion filed by the judgment debtor on 11th February 2025 prays for these orders:

1.       An order setting aside the Ruling/Garnishee Order Nisi made by the National Industrial Court of Nigeria (Coram: The Honourable Justice O. Y. ANUWE) in a ruling delivered in Suit No. NICN/ABJ/161/2019/Motion No: NICN/ABJ/437M/2024 on 23" January, 2025, in terms of the affidavit filed with this Application.

2.       An order for stay of further Garnishee proceedings or any other form of proceedings, execution or preparation for execution of the judgment of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria in this matter made pursuant to the Ruling/Garnishee Order Nisi delivered in National Industrial Court of Nigeria (Coram: The Honourable Justice O. Y. ANUWE) in a ruling delivered in Suit No. NICN/ABJ/161/2019/Motion No: NICN/ABJ/437M/2024 on 23 January, 2025, for garnishee order nisi pending the hearing and determination of the appeal in this matter at the Court of Appeal of Nigeria, Abuja Division, Abuja.

3.       An order of injunction restraining the Judgment Creditor/Respondent, Garnishee/Respondent (Zenith Bank Plc) by itself, officers, agents, privies or howsoever called from paying over either the sum of ten million, two hundred and fifteen  thousand naira, seven hundred and fifty six naira, fourteen kobo (N10,215,756.14k) only or the sum of five hundred thousand naira (N500,000) as cost of the action or any other amount of money from any account of the Judgment Debtor/Applicant or any other funds standing to the credit of the Judgment Debtor/Applicant in purported satisfaction of the Judgment of the National Industrial Court in Suit No. NICN/ABJ/161/2019 pending the determination of the appeal against the said judgment at the Court of Appeal of Nigeria, Abuja Division, Abuja – Appeal Motion on Notice No. CA/ABJ/PRE/ROA/CV/1995M1/2024: The Clerk of the National Asembly V. Abed Oguchi Anyadike.

 

The motion is supported with an affidavit and a written address. The facts of the motion are contained in the affidavit in support of the motion which was deposed by Selman Falum Dashe, a Principal Legal Officer in the Directorate of Legal Services, National Assembly. It was averred in the affidavit that the Garnishee Order Nisi, made on 23rd January 2025, came to his notice on the 10th February, 2025. The Judgment Debtor took steps to set aside, vacate and/or reverse the Garnishee Order Nisi, as same was made in ignorance or in abuse of the application pending before the Court of Appeal, Abuja Division, which is a motion on notice No. CA/ABJ/PRE/ROA/CV/1995M1/2024 between the Clerk of the National Assembly V. Abed Oguchi Anyadike filed since on 23rd October 2024 and served on the Judgment Creditor. The Judgment Debtor has also informed the other party and Court about the appeal vide a reply dated 29/10/2024 to letter of demand for payment of the judgment debt and the notice dated 24/10/2024 of filing of motion for leave to appeal and request for compilation and transmission of records. The Judgment Creditor has since been served with the documents of the appeal and he knew about the pending appeal when he went ahead to apply for Garnishee Order nisi.

 

It was further stated in the affidavit that the Clerk to the National Assembly is a public servant and the consent of the Attorney General of the Federation has not been obtained to attach the funds of the Judgment Debtor with Zenith Bank Plc. The Judgment Debtor is dissatisfied with the Ruling of this Court and has initiated this process to seek to have same reversed/set aside in the interest of justice. There is an appeal pending before the Court of Appeal against the judgment of the National Industrial Court and the appeal raises fundamental and recondite constitutional issues of lack of jurisdiction, breach of the rules of natural justice and improper evaluation of evidence. It was also deposed that the Court needs to make directing or restraining the Garnishee from paying over any sum of money from the account of the Judgment Debtor in satisfaction of the Judgment.

 

In opposing the motion, the judgment creditor filed a counter affidavit and written address on 21st February 2025. The counter affidavit was deposed to by Deborah Obiokoli, one of the Legal Practitioners representing the judgment creditor. It was averred that there is no pending valid Notice of Appeal, leave to Appeal or any Appeal before the Court of Appeal challenging the Judgment of this Court delivered on the 5th July 2024. What is before the Court of Appeal is a motion seeking for extension of time for the Judgment Debtor to file his Notice of Appeal out of time. This Court was never misled in granting the order to garnish the Judgment Debtor's account as there is no valid Notice of Appeal or any application for leave to appeal the decision of this Court and there is no Appeal number in the Court of Appeal registry book kept at the Court of Appeal. The motion for leave and extension of time bearing CA/ABJ/PRE/ROA/CV/1995M1/2024 is not an appeal number but a motion number issued by the Court of Appeal to hear a motion. It was deposed further that the Judgment Creditor does not require the consent of the Attorney General of the Federation or any person to enforce a valid Court judgment.

 

I have read the submissions contained in the written addresses filed in support of both the motion and the counter affidavit.

 

The first prayer sought by the judgment debtor/applicant in the motion is an order setting aside the Garnishee Order Nisi made by this Court on 23rd January 2025 while the second prayer is for an order staying further proceedings in the Garnishee proceedings. These prayers have been overtaken by the event of the Order Nisi having become Absolute on 24th February 2025. The Garnishee Order Nisi sought to be set aside is no longer in existence as at the date this motion was heard as the order had been substituted with an Order Absolute. Accordingly, the Order Nisi is no longer capable of being set aside. Again, the garnishee proceedings were concluded when the Order Absolute was made. Except for this motion brought by the judgment debtor/applicant, there is no proceeding still pending in the garnishee proceedings to be stayed.

 

Assuming the Order Nisi is still subsisting, the question will be whether the judgment debtor/applicant has advanced any good and satisfactory reason to entitle this Court to set aside the Garnishee Order Nisi? It is settled law that every Court has the inherent powers to set aside its orders or judgment. The law has also prescribed or laid down the circumstances or grounds upon which the court will exercise such jurisdiction to set aside its orders or judgment. In ALAWIYE vs. OGUNSANYA (2013) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1348) 570 AT 620, the Supreme Court set out the circumstances or grounds upon which a court may set aside its judgments as follows:

                        “Courts of record have the inherent jurisdiction to set aside their judgments or decisions under certain appropriate circumstances, which include: [a] the judgment is obtained by fraud or deceit in the court by one or more of the parties; (b) the judgment is a nullity; [c] it is obvious that the court was misled to giving the judgment under a mistaken belief that the parties consented to it; [d] the judgment was given in the absence of jurisdiction; [e] the proceedings adopted was such as to deprive the decision or judgment of the character of a legitimate adjudication; and (f) where there is fundamental irregularity.”

     

See also COVALENT OIL & GAS SERVICES LTD. vs. ECOBANK (NIG.) PLC (2021) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1784) 252 at 281. Thus, this court can set aside its orders shown to have been tainted by any of the grounds mentioned above by the Apex Court in ALAWIYE vs. OGUNSANYA (supra). Therefore, to convince this court to set aside the Order Nisi, the applicant has to bring its application under any one of the above grounds.

 

Upon examining the facts in the affidavit in support of the motion, the reasons given by the applicant for asking this court to set aside the Order Nisi are that-

1.     The Garnishee Order Nisi was made despite the pending motion in the Court of Appeal for leave to appeal the judgment, and that

2.     The consent of the Attorney General of the Federation was not obtained to attach the funds of the Judgment Debtor with the Garnishee.

 

What the applicant has exhibited to the motion as Exhibit NASS 1 is a motion it filed in the Court of Appeal seeking extension of time to seek leave to appeal and leave to appeal the judgment of the Court. It is disclosed in the affidavit in support of the motion that the said motion filed in the Court of Appeal is still pending. The implication is that the motion has not been heard or granted. It also confirms that leave of the Court of Appeal has not been granted to the applicant to appeal the judgment of this Court. The result is that the applicant does have a valid appeal pending in the Court of Appeal. In my view, the said motion pending in the Court of Appeal cannot prevent the judgment creditor from taking steps to enforce the judgment. Accordingly, the fact that Garnishee Order Nisi was made when a motion for leave to appeal was pending in the Court of Appeal is not a reason to set aside the Garnishee Order Nisi.

 

Let me add that merely filing an appeal in the Court of Appeal, as the applicant wants me to believe, does not operate as stay of execution. See Order 64 Rule 14[3] of the Rules of this Court. Without an order for stay of execution sought and obtained from the Court that delivered the judgment or an appellate court, execution of a judgment will be valid regardless of a pending appeal. In this case, there was no order for stay of execution made either by this court or the Court of Appeal as at the time the Garnishee Order Nisi was made. There was even no application made to this Court or the Court of Appeal seeking stay of execution before the Garnishee Order Nisi was made. Consequently, the simple fact that the applicant has a pending motion in the Court of Appeal for leave to appeal as at the time the Garnishee Order Nisi was made is not a valid ground to set aside the Garnishee Order Nisi

 

It was averred in the affidavit in support of the motion that the consent of the Attorney General of the Federation was not obtained before the Order Nisi was made to attach the funds of the Judgment Debtor with the garnishee. In the written address in support of the motion, learned counsel for the applicant relied on section 84[1] and [3] of the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act to submitted that the consent of the Attorney General of the Federation or of a state is required to be sought and obtained before garnishee proceedings can be commenced against Federal or State Governments and their respective agencies. I have read the provisions of Section 84 of the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act. It is to the effect that where the fund to be attached is in custody or under the control of a public officer, the Attorney-General’s prior consent must be sought and obtained. The money sought to be attached or already attached in this garnishee proceedings is in the custody of Zenith Bank, the garnishee.  Zenith Bank is not a public officer in the context of the term as described in section 84[3] of the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act. Thus, the need to seek the consent of the Attorney General of the Federation before attaching monies of the Applicant in the custody of the Garnishee does not arise.

 

The result is that the Applicant has not established any cogent and acceptable reason to set aside the Order Nisi.

 

The second leg of the second prayer sought in the motion is for an order of this Court staying the execution of the judgment in Suit No. NICN/ABJ/161/2019 and the Garnishee Order Nisi made in Motion No. NICN/ABJ/437M/2024 pending the hearing and determination of the appeal at the Court of Appeal. The applicant has also asked this court in relief 3 of the motion to make an order restraining the Garnishee, that is Zenith Bank Plc, from paying over the attached sum from any account of the Judgment Debtor/Applicant or any other funds standing to the credit of the Judgment Debtor/Applicant pending appeal. The basis for these prayers is the same reason that the Judgment Debtor/Applicant has a pending appeal at the Court of Appeal. The circumstance provided in Order 64 Rules 8[3] and 13 of the Rules of this Court in which this Court may exercise discretion to stay execution of its judgment or order is if there is a valid pending appeal in the Court of Appeal against the judgment or order. I have said earlier that the applicant has no valid appeal pending yet in the Court of Appeal. Therefore, there is no reason to make the order for stay of execution or injunction sought by the applicant.

 

I do not find merit in the motion of the Judgment Debtor/Applicant. The motion is dismissed. No order as to cost.

 

Ruling is entered accordingly.

 

 

Hon. Justice O. Y. Anuwe

Judge