Citizens International Bank Limited V. Scoa Nigeria Limited & Anor (2006)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

SALAMI, J.C.A.

In the High Court of Lagos State, in the Ikeja Judicial Division, sitting in Ikeja, the judgment creditor brought an application, ex-parte praying for the debts due or accruing to the garnishee to the judgment debtor or so much thereof be attached to answer the judgment recovered against the judgment creditor on the 15th day of January, 2001.

The learned trial Judge on 8th day of May, 2002 made an order of Garnishee nisi wherein Citizens International Bank Limited, the Garnishee was ordered to appear before the court and show cause why an order will not be made on it for the payment to the judgment creditor, the outstanding judgment debt as well as the costs of the garnishee proceedings. The Garnishee caused an affidavit showing cause to be deposed on its behalf. The judgment creditor failed or did not depose to a counter affidavit. Learned trial Judge, after taking arguments of counsel, in a reserved and considered ruling, concluded as follows:

“In the circumstance, and in the light of the affidavit evidence before me, I find that no reason was indeed given by the Garnishee why sums of money in the account of the judgment debtor at the Ganishee’s Lateef Jakande Road, Ikeja branch and which account is numbered “1012720617” should not be attached to satisfy the judgment debt herein.

Accordingly, I hereby pronounce the garnishee order absolute. Accordingly, the sums of money in account No. 1012720617, being an account held in the name of the judgment debtor at the Lateef Jakande Road, Ikeja branch of the Garnishee and which sums of money stand to the credit of the judgment debtor as a creditor of the Garnishee shall be and they are hereby attached to satisfy the judgment debt yet unpaid (this being the sum of N2,800,000.00k … ) as well as costs of these garnishee proceedings.”

The Garnishee felt dissatisfied with the ruling and being aggrieved, it appealed to this court on 4 grounds of appeal. In accordance with the procedure and practice of this court, briefs of argument were settled at the appellant’s, respondents and appellant’s reply briefs. At the hearing of the appeal, the various briefs of argument were adopted and relied upon. The Garnishee, in its own brief, formulated the following three issues for determination in this appeal-

“(a) Whether learned trial Judge of the lower court was right to hold and conclude that the depositions of the judgment creditor is unchallenged in view of the depositions as contained in the affidavit showing cause of the Garnishee?

(b) Whether even in view of the affidavit evidence the learned trial Judge of the lower court was not bound to accept the affidavit evidence of the Garnishee, which is supported by documentary evidence?

(c) Whether the learned trial Judge was right when he suo motu held that some paragraphs of the affidavit showing cause offend against the Evidence Act and struck out the allegedly offending paragraphs of Garnishee’s affidavit showing cause without hearing the parties?”

The appellant duly related its formulations to the grounds of appeal. He related issue (a) to grounds A and B of the grounds of appeal, while issues (b) and (c) respectively derived from grounds (C) and (D) of the grounds of appeal.

On the other hand, the respondent framed the following issues for consideration and determination in this appeal.

“3.1 1st respondent’s issue 1 framed from the appellant’s

Ground one

whether the appellant/Garnishee complied with the Garnishee order nisi of the lower court and the provisions of S. 85 of the Sheriff and Civil Process Act in its affidavit to show cause?