Central Bank Of Nigeria V. Okeb Nigeria Limited & Ors (2014)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

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

By a motion dated and filed on the 4th of June 2013. The garnishee (appellant) sought for an order setting aside the garnishee order nisi, made by the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory on the 20th of May, 2013 against the appellant, as per pages 3-26 of the record.

The 1st and 2nd respondents opposed the application, as per pages 27-38 of the record; the appellant filed a reply on points of law, pages 39-48 of the record.

The application was argued on the 27th of June, 2013, pages 53-58 of the record; the learned trial judge, Justice M. M. Dodo dismissed the application, pages 59-70.

Dissatisfied, the appellant filed an appeal vide notice of appeal dated and filed on the 5th of August, 2013, pages 71-76 of the record; the notice contained five grounds of appeal.

Facts in brief:

The 1st and 2nd respondents obtained judgment before the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja, on the 8th of March, 2012, against Keystone Bank limited, the 3rd respondent in this appeal, in the sum of N491,054,785; with post judgment interest of 10% per annum to commence on the 8th February 2013; with amount due as per the judgment to date standing at 536, 668, 556., as per paragraphs 9 and 16 of the 1st and 2nd respondents, at page 28 of the record.

The 1st and 2nd respondents obtained the garnishee order nisi on the 13th of May, 2013; the appellants by a motion dated and filed on the 4th of June 2013 sought to set aside the said order, the trial court dismissed the application, on the 2nd of August, 2013.

PRELIMINARY OBJECTION:

The notice of preliminary objection filed along with the respondents’ brief on the 2nd of December, 2013 was adopted on the 13th of May, 2014, alongside the response; the grounds of objection are as follows:

1. Grounds 1, 2, 4 and 5 of the notice of appeal dated and filed 5th of August, 2013 are incompetent, needless, argumentative and or at cross purposes with the particulars, hence offensive of order.
2. Ground 3 of the notice of appeal dated and filed 5th august, 2013 is manifestly incompetent as does not arise from the ruling of the learned trial judge and or against the ratio decidendi of the ruling of the Lower Court.
3. Issues 1, 2, and 3 formulated by the appellant lumped together invalid grounds of appeal and argued together render all the grounds of appeal and issues for determination incompetent.
4. The purported appellant’s brief of argument filed before this court on the 22nd of October, 2013 is undated and unsigned and as such a nullity and or worthless piece of paper, hence, incapable of animating the appeal.
5. Arising from the foregoing, the appeal itself is rendered incompetent and ought to be struck out as there is no valid extant ground much less valid appellant’s brief of argument to animate it.

The following issues were formulated for determination by the respondents in the preliminary objection; same were adopted by the appellant:

1. Whether grounds 1, 2, 4 and 5 of the grounds of appeal contained in the notice of appeal dated and filed 5th August, 2013 are competent, particularly having regard to Order 6 Rules 2(3) and 3 of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2011.
2. Whether ground 3 of the grounds of appeal is competent in law, having not arisen from the ratio decidendi or specific finding of the ruling of the Lower Court.
3. Whether undated and unsigned appellant’s brief of argument filed on the 22nd of October, 2013 before this court is valid in law, let alone animate the appeal.
4. Whether the appeal itself is not altogether rendered incompetent given the indiscriminate lumping of invalid grounds formulated for determination and canvassed together by the appellant and having regard to the undated and unsigned appellant’s brief.

Issues one and two:

Having gone through the grounds of appeal this court fails to see any basis for arguing that the said grounds are argumentative as contended by learned counsel to the respondents; on the contrary this court finds the particulars complained of consistent with the grounds they relate to; and so both Kamba v. Bawa (2005) 4 NWLR part 914 at 54 and Lagga v. Sarhuna (2008) 16 NWLR part 1114 at 427 do not apply in this case. if indeed the grounds were that incongruous or vague the 1st and 2nd respondents, as rightly argued by the appellant would have been unable to formulate their issue 2, which indeed is similar to the appellant’s issue 2; this Court is in full agreement with learned counsel to the appellant that the particulars in grounds 2 and 4 flow seamlessly; Order 6 Rule 3 of the Rules of this Court have been complied with contrary to the contention of learned counsel to the appellant.

Ground 3 on the other hand does appear in the opinion of this Court, to have arisen from the Court’s ruling; and nothing prevents the appellant from raising as a ground of appeal a complaint as to failure of the Lower Court to consider issues raised, ”