Consent of the Attorney-General is not required where the garnishee in custody of the judgment debtor’s funds is the Central Bank of Nigeria.

CENTRAL BANK OF NIGERIA v. LIDAN ENGINEERING LIMITED & 6 ORS

SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA

(GARBA; ABUBAKAR; TSAMMANI; OGBUINYA; ABIRU: JJ.SC)

 FACTS

Lidan Engineering Limited, Johns Express Agencies Limited, Hopevile & Green Nig. Limited, and Mr. Chuks Agoha (the 1st to 4th Respondents), sometime in 2004, imported six 40-feet containers into Nigeria from the United States of America. The said containers were however wrongfully and unlawfully auctioned by officials of the Nigerian Customs Service, who thereafter refused and/or ignored all entreaties for compensation made by the 1st to 4th Respondents. The 1st to 4th Respondents instituted an action at the Federal High Court against the Customs, Immigration And Prisons Service Board, The Comptroller-General Of Customs, and The Attorney-General Of The Federation (the 5th to 7th Respondents), claiming the sum of N470 Million as special and general damages for the unlawful auction of the containers.

At the conclusion of trial, the Federal High Court entered judgment in favour of the 1st to 4th Respondents in the sum of N320 Million as damages for the wrongful auction of the containers. The 5th to 7th Respondents did not appeal against the judgment, nor did they satisfy same or engage the Respondents for settlement. Although they claimed to have filed an appeal, a search at the registry of the Federal High Court revealed that no such appeal existed.

In June 2018, about six years after the judgment, the 1st to 4th Respondents commenced garnishee proceedings for the enforcement of the judgment debt, together with accrued interest. In response, the 5th to 7th Respondents filed process opposing the grant of the garnishee order absolute. Their contention was that the judgment could not be enforced against the Nigerian Customs Service, as the entity now sued under that name was not the same as the original 5th Respondent described in the judgment.

The Central Bank of Nigeria (the Appellant), being the garnishee against whom the order nisi was issued, also opposed the proceedings. The case of the Appellant was that it is a public officer within the meaning of the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act, and that the consent of the Attorney-General of the Federation was a condition precedent to the validity of the garnishee proceedings. The Federal High Court considered the objections of the 5th to 7th Respondents and the Appellant and dismissed same. It proceeded to grant the garnishee order absolute against the account of the 5th Respondent held with the Appellant. Dissatisfied, the Appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal, which dismissed the appeal. Still aggrieved, the Appellant further appealed to the Supreme Court.

One of the issues for determination was: Whether the Lower Court was right in holding that the Garnishee in this case does not stand as a public officer and consequently the consent of the Attorney-General was not required before commencing the Garnishee Proceedings.

ARGUMENT

Learned counsel for the Appellant contended that the Appellant is a Public Officer within the meaning of the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act and other superior legislations, and therefore subject to the statutory requirement under the Act. It was his submission that the consent of the Attorney-General of the Federation constitutes a mandatory condition precedent to the commencement of enforcement proceedings against the Appellant, particularly in the execution of the judgment in favour of the 1st to 4th Respondents. Counsel further argued that the Appellant is not merely a banker in the ordinary commercial sense but assumes a public officer character in the peculiar circumstances of the case, thereby attracting the protective regime of prior consent.

In response, learned senior counsel for the 1st to 4th Respondents submitted that the Appellant, when joined in garnishee proceedings in its capacity as a banker and custodian of funds, does not fall within the contemplation of a Public Officer for the purposes of garnishee proceedings. He argued that the statutory requirement for the consent of the Attorney-General is inapplicable in garnishee proceedings against the Appellant, as its role is limited to that of a financial institution holding funds belonging to the judgment debtor, and not as a public officer executing governmental functions in the sense envisaged by the statute. Accordingly, he maintained that the precedent of obtaining the Attorney-General’s consent does not arise in the circumstances of the case.

DECISION OF THE COURT

In resolving the issue, the Supreme Court held that:

The Consent of the Attorney-General of the Federation is not required for the commencement of garnishee proceedings where the garnishee in custody of the judgment debtor’s funds is the Central Bank of Nigeria. This is because the Central Bank of Nigeria does not qualify as Public Officer within the contemplation of the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act.

The Supreme Court emphasised that the applicability of the requirement for consent is restricted to cases where the garnishee properly falls within the legal category of a public officer. It is not enough that the garnishee is a public institution or one connected to government; it must clearly come within the statutory meaning envisaged by the Act. Applying this principle, the Court held that the Central Bank of Nigeria, though the custodian of public and governmental funds, does not, for the purpose of garnishee proceedings, assume the status of a public officer.

In the instant case, the Supreme Court in affirming the decision of the Court of Appeal, held that consent of the Attorney is not a condition precedent before commencement of garnishee proceedings against the Appellant and that the lower court was right to have proceeded with the garnishee proceedings without the consent of the Attorney General.

Issue resolved in favour of the 1^st to 4^th Respondent.

Boniface Bassey, Esq. with Janet Akpachukwu, Esq., for the Appellant.

Alex Ejesiene, SAN with Patience ldam, Esq., Obumneme Nweze, Esq., and Anselm Ochili, Esq., for the 1^st – 4^th Respondents.

U. K. Ngumoha, Esq., for the 5^th Respondent.

Dr. Obinna Onya, Esq., with A. A. Akaha, Esq., for the 6^th Respondent.

Kafilat Adeleke, Esq., Assistant Chief State Counsel, Federal Ministry of Justice for the 7^th Respondent.

This summary is fully reported at (2026) 3 CLRN in association with ALP NG & Co.

See www.clrndirect.com ; www.alp.company.