Central Bank Of Nigeria V. Chief Obla Ubana & Ors (2016)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

MOHAMMED MUSTAPHA, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

This is an appeal by the garnishee/appellant against the decision of the Federal Capital Territory High Court Abuja presided over by Honourable Justice Chizoba N. Orji, delivered on the 28th of February, 2013 by an amended notice of appeal filed on the 1st of July, 2013 on four grounds as follows:

GROUND ONE:

The learned trial Judge erred in law when she held:

“I have considered the affidavit and submission of both learned counsel. It is clear that though there appears to be a conflict in affidavit to show cause and the further affidavit to show cause on one hand and the judgment creditor further and better affidavit to Garnishee, affidavit to show cause on the other hand, a close security of both sets of affidavit shows that the garnishee does not dispute that a Federal (sic) account exists with the Garnishee out of which monthly disbursements are made to each state including Cross River State Government. I am therefore in agreement with the judgment creditor that the order nisi be made absolute with regards to the

monies in the said Federation account which are accruing to the government of Cross River State.”

GROUND TWO:

The learned trial Judge erred in law when she held:

“I think the garnishee is relying on a technicality that there is no account in the name of Cross River State in their argument that there is nothing on which the order nisi can be made absolute. Whatever is due to the Cross River State in the Federation Account in my humble view can be subject to a decree absolute.”

GROUND THREE:

The learned trial Judge erred in law when she tried the Garnishee proceedings brought before her by the Judgment Creditors while she had no jurisdiction to do so.

GROUND FOUR:

The learned trial Judge erred in law when she tried the Garnishee proceedings brought before her by the Judgment Creditors without jurisdiction.

The appellant did not advance any argument in respect of ground three; the law is settled that any ground of appeal formulated and not argued is deemed abandoned and if abandoned, it is treated as it never existed. The said