site logo

CENTRAL BANK OF NIGERIA V. INTERSTELLA COMMUNICATIONS LTD (C (2018)

case summary

Supreme Court of Nigeria

Before Their Lordships:

  • OLABODE RHODES-VIVOUR JSC
  • MARY UKAEGO PETER-ODILI JSC
  • CLARA BATA OGUNBIYI JSC
  • AMIRU SANUSI JSC
  • SIDI DAUDA BAGE JSC

Parties:

Appellant:

  • Central Bank of Nigeria

Respondents:

  • Interstella Communications Ltd
  • Federal Government of Nigeria
  • Attorney-General of the Federation
Suit number: SC. 500/2014Delivered on: 2018-03-26

Background

This case involves a garnishee proceeding initiated by Interstella Communications Ltd against the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) to enforce a consent judgment. The underlying dispute arose from a breach of contract judgment against the Nigerian Telecommunications Limited (NITEL) totaling over N23 billion and $48 million. An inter-ministerial committee later negotiated a settlement of N12 billion, accepted by the plaintiffs and recorded as a consent judgment by the Federal High Court.

Issues

The Supreme Court addressed several legal issues:

  1. Applicability of section 97 of the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act to the Federal High Court.
  2. Jurisdiction of the court in garnishee proceedings with non-parties.
  3. Whether the CBN is considered a public officer needing consent from the Attorney-General.
  4. Whether the appellant's constitutional right to fair hearing was breached during the proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi

The court concluded that:

  1. The endorsement required under section 97 does not apply to the garnishee order nisi served to the CBN, as the procedure followed was valid and compliant.
  2. The parties in the garnishee proceedings were properly constituted as the 3rd and 4th respondents were deemed necessary parties.
  3. The CBN, acting in its capacity as a banker for the Federal Government, does not require the Attorney-General's consent under the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act for garnishee proceedings.
  4. The appellant could not claim a breach of fair hearing as it had been afforded opportunities to respond, but failed to present its case adequately.

Court Findings

The court found that:

  1. The CBN did not properly show cause as to why the garnishee order should not be made absolute, ultimately leading to the order being upheld.
  2. Jurisdiction of the Federal High Court encompasses all states in Nigeria, reaffirming that it had the authority to entertain the garnishee proceedings.
  3. The previous agreements and representations made by the 3rd and 4th respondents bound them to the consent judgment, qualifying them as parties in the garnishee proceedings.
  4. Due process was followed in reaching the judgment, satisfying the requirements under the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act.

Conclusion

The appeal was dismissed with affirmance of the lower court judgments. The CBN, by its failure to follow due process, waived its objections and thus is liable for the amounts owed according to the consent judgment.

Significance

This case underscores the legal principles governing garnishee proceedings and the obligations of institutions in compliance with consent judgments.

Counsel:

  • Olanrewaju Osinaike Esq.
  • Mrs. Adeola Adedipe
  • Mr. Dayo Apara (SGF)