ENFORCEMENT OF JUDGMENTS AGAINST GOVERNMENT ENTITIES IN NIGERIA – BY JIBRIN SAM OKUTEPA SAN

One of the essential components of the rule of law is obedience to court orders or judgments of competent courts of law. There is no reason why judgments of courts should remain unsatisfied or unenforceable. It is sad to note, but it is the reality in Nigeria that enforcing judgments against government, government agencies and even political parties and some powerful individuals is like the camel passing through the eyes of the needle. one of the means by which law makers reasoned that monetary judgments of our courts be enforced is by or through garnishee proceedings. This is a proceedings in which the judgments creditors apply to courts by Ex-Parte applications to attach money due and accrue to the judgments debtors in the hands of a third party called the garnishee. see sections 83 and 84 of the sheriffs and Civil Process Act 2004. While the law makers seem to have found a way round the disobedience attitudes of recalcitrant government judgments debtors and made law for garnishee proceedings, they seem to be over protective of government and its agencies.

There are laws in various states which seem to suggest or subject enforcement of judgments against governments and its agents to whims and caprices of the Hon Attorneys general either of the Federation or the State. These law put a cog in the wheel of execution of judgments by garnishee proceedings. It requires that before money in the custody of public officers can be attached by garnishee proceedings the consent of the Hon Attorney General must be had and obtained. This has truncated the enforcements of many judgments. Most if not all the Attorneys general hardly grant consent. But in the light of our laws and the constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, do we need the consent of Attorney general before enforcing judgments of courts of competent jurisdiction. It is submitted that we do not. It is further submitted that monies of government kept with commercial banks and even central bank of Nigeria are not monies in the custody of public officers to require consent of Attorney General before it can be attached vide garnishee proceedings. Assuming without conceding that it is it will in my view amounts to abuse of and negation of the rule of law, the doctrine of separation of powers to subject the enforcement of courts judgments to consent of the Hon Attorney general, an appointee of the Executive.

It is submitted that commercial Banks and even Central bank are not public officers within the meaning of the law when it comes to enforcement of judgments vide garnishee proceedings. It is my contention that the judgment debtors’ monies in the custody of the garnishees banks are monies held in a Commercial Banks and not held by the garnishees banks in such circumstances as an arm of government. On this, see Afe Babalola on Enforcement of Judgments, 1st edition, 2003 (Intec Printers Ltd.) 119 – 120, where the learned silk copiously relied on the decided cases of Balogun & Co Ltd vs Ijebu- Ode Local Government HCS/47/80 of 20/788 (unreported) and Rogers vs Whitely (1852) AC 118 to posit that the consent of the Hon. Attorney General is not required for an order of Garnishee to attach the monies of a government institution in the hands of a Commercial Bank.The Supreme Court’s decision in PURIFICATION TECHNIQUES NIG. LTD v A.G. LAGOS STATE (2004) 9 NWLR (Pt. 879) 665, has now settled the legal issue that the relationship that exists between the judgment debtor and the garnishee is purely a customer-banker relationship and same being monies held in custody for a judgment debtor is liable to be attached upon the grant of an order nisi.

It is equally submitted that not even section 84 of the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act, 2004 prescribing the consent of the Hon. Attorney General can stop the grant of an application for garnishee proceedings as the superior Courts have held in some cases that this will amount to an interested party being made a judge in its own cause. In other words an applicant for garnishee proceedings, it is submitted doesn’t need the permission or consent of the Attorney General, a government official before enforcing a valid Court judgment. See for instance the decisions in UNIVERSITY OF CALABAR TEACHING HOSPITAL v LIZIKON (NIG) LTD & ANOR (2017) LPELR-42339 (CA), CENTRAL BANK OF NIGERIA v INTERSTELLAR COMMUNICATIONS (NIG.) LTD (2015) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1462) 457 and CENTRAL BANK OF NIGERIA v NJAMANZE (2015) 4 NWLR (Pt1449) 267.

In any case, the right to enforce the judgment of Courts is Constitutional. Enforcement of judgment is part of the compendium of judicial powers as set out in section 6 (6) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended). Any law therefore that tends to interfere with the exercise of judicial powers or ousting the jurisdiction of court from enforcing its judgment will be unconstitutional and therefore should not stop any Court from enforcing its judgment vide garnishees proceedings. See Jallo vs Military Governor of Kano State (1991)5 NWLR(Pt. 194) 754 at 764 – 765, where the court of appeal held that:“Is this Edict valid in the light of sections 6, 236 and 251 of the 1979 constitution? If any decision of the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeal or any other High Court is sought to be executed in Kano State in a judgment of Kano State or any of its agencies and enterprises in which it holds controlling shares or interests, the said Edict of 1987 would halt such exercise of constitutional powers under section 251, and will be in conflict with that section. Also execution of judgment is part of the compendium of judicial powers of the court under section 6, for which it has unlimited jurisdiction under section 236 of the said constitution. That Edict by ousting the jurisdiction of the courts in its powers to enforce judgment against all parties in the case, as regards judgment obtained against Kano State and its agencies or enterprises is as bad an ouster of the Courts jurisdiction as the ouster of chieftaincy mattes in the Ondo State Chiefs Edict declared in Adewumi’s case by the High Court, Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court as inconsistent with sections 6, and 236 of the Constitution and therefore void. I too hereby declare the said Edict of 198 enacted by the Governor of Kano State as void being inconsistent with sections 2(1) and (2) of Decree No. 1 of 1984 as well as with sections 6, 236, 251 of the 1979 Constitution”.Finally it has been held that a Court has the jurisdiction to grant a Garnishee Order Nisi attaching funds in a Bank Account even where the Account Number is not supplied; see OCEANIC BANK PLC V. OLADEPO (2012) LPELR 19670 (CA). It is therefore my submission and suggestion that as legal practitioners we must do everything to ensure that judgments of courts are obeyed and where they are not obeyed to resort to garnishee proceedings to realize the fruits of the judgments for our clients. Time has also come to make it mandatory and part of the duty of Attorneys general that we have yearly budgets to be put in an interest yielding accounts for judgments debts