CBN Secures Victory As Appellate Court Sets Aside N100.1m Garnishee Order

The Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) on Wednesday, secured a major legal victory after the Court of Appeal, Abuja Division, in a landmark, jurisprudentially significant and precedent-reinforcing judgment delivered by Justice Okon Abang, overturned the Federal High Court’s decision attaching a purported N100.1 million judgment debt against the apex bank in a dispute involving the Imo State Government.

In a meticulously reasoned lead judgment, Justice Abang held that the trial court acted on speculation rather than credible and verifiable evidence in making a garnishee order absolute against the CBN. 

The court emphatically reaffirmed that the apex bank neither maintained an account for the Imo State Government nor owed the state any attachable debt capable of sustaining garnishee proceedings.

The appeal arose from the judgment of the Federal High Court, Abuja, delivered on May 19, 2016, in garnishee proceedings instituted by Andrew Okoroji to enforce a N100,178,210 judgment earlier obtained against the Imo State Government. 

The trial court had held that the state’s anticipated allocation from the Federation Account Allocation Committee (FAAC), domiciled with the CBN, constituted attachable funds.

The CBN challenged that decision.

A Decisive Appellate Intervention

Delivering the lead judgment, Justice Abang subjected the respondent’s evidence to rigorous judicial scrutiny and found it fundamentally deficient.

He held that Okoroji, who deposed to the counter-affidavit, neither claimed membership of FAAC nor disclosed the source of the information contained in his affidavit.

“All depositions in his counter-affidavit are documentary hearsay, which are not credible and reliable. I so hold,” he said.

The court held that the trial judge acted with undue haste by making the garnishee order absolute without first resolving the factual disputes through trial.

Justice Abang stressed that garnishee proceedings must rest on credible, cogent and verifiable evidence, not assumptions or conjecture.

“The first respondent did not prove by verifiable evidence that the CBN was indebted to the Imo State Government to warrant the order nisi being made in the first place to attach a non-existent debt in the hands of the CBN,” the court held.

In one of the judgment’s most striking findings, Justice Abang held that the lower court proceeded on speculation by treating anticipated FAAC allocations as attachable debts despite the absence of any legal evidence establishing indebtedness on the part of the CBN.

He concluded that the trial court acted speculatively and was sentimental and emotional against the apex bank.

“There was no basis in fact and in law for the order to be made absolute,” he stated.

The court unanimously allowed the appeal, set aside the garnishee order and awarded N1 million costs against the judgment creditor.

Abang held that the order absolute was made on imagination of the trial court, adding: “The trial court can not make an order in vain.”

Reaffirming the Law on Garnishee Proceedings

Rejecting the argument that anticipated FAAC allocations constitute debts attachable in garnishee proceedings, Justice Abang reaffirmed the orthodox legal position that only an existing, ascertainable and legally enforceable debt can be attached.

The judgment represents a robust reaffirmation of settled principles governing garnishee proceedings and is expected to become an important appellate authority on the evidential threshold required before financial institutions can lawfully be subjected to attachment orders.

Another Landmark Pronouncement on Affidavit Evidence

In another significant judgment delivered the same day, Justice Abang upheld the appeal of Mr Igwe Onyesom Ugochukwu in a fundamental rights enforcement suit against KYC Interproject Ltd., while making an authoritative pronouncement on the treatment of affidavit evidence and electronic exhibits.

The appellant had alleged that he was unlawfully arrested by persons acting on behalf of KYC Interproject Ltd. while at his building site in Lugbe, Abuja. 

The court held that the respondents, not being law enforcement authorities, had no legal power to arrest or detain him, and awarded N15 million damages for the violation of his constitutional rights to dignity, personal liberty, fair hearing and freedom of movement.

Beyond the award of damages, the appeal produced an important clarification of the law after the trial court dismissed the application because the applicant allegedly failed to “play” a video CD attached as an exhibit to the supporting affidavit.

Justice Abang disagreed.

Relying on the definition of a “document” under Section 258 of the Evidence Act, 2011, Abang held that once the video CD was properly exhibited to the affidavit, it automatically became part of the affidavit evidence before the court.

The court reaffirmed the settled principle that documents attached to an affidavit are incorporated into and constitute part of the affidavit itself, distinguishing affidavit proceedings from trials conducted viva voce, where documentary exhibits ordinarily require formal tendering through a witness.

Justice Abang also distinguished Dixon v. Sylva (2017) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1567) 167, holding that it was inapplicable to the facts before the Court.

Invoking the powers conferred by Section 15 of the Court of Appeal Act, the court evaluated the video evidence, made the findings that ought to have been made by the trial court and allowed the appeal.

Why the Decisions Matter

Taken together, the two judgments reinforce Justice Abang’s reputation for delivering carefully reasoned, precedent-driven and jurisprudentially significant decisions anchored firmly on statutory interpretation and established legal principles.

While the CBN decision provides an authoritative restatement of the law governing garnishee proceedings and the necessity of proving an existing attachable debt before invoking the coercive powers of the court, the KYC appeal offers valuable guidance on the status of documentary exhibits attached to affidavits and the treatment of electronic evidence in affidavit proceedings.

Collectively, the judgments underscore the Court of Appeal’s insistence that judicial discretion must remain rooted in evidence, law and binding precedent, and are expected to occupy an important place in Nigeria’s evolving jurisprudence on garnishee proceedings, affidavit evidence and the enforcement of fundamental rights.