CENTRAL BANK OF NIGERIA V. LIDAN ENGINEERING LTD & ORS (2026)

Background

This appeal concerned the enforcement of a monetary judgment through garnishee proceedings. The first to fourth respondents imported six 40-foot containers into Nigeria from the United States. They alleged that officers of the Nigerian Customs Service unlawfully auctioned the containers and thereafter failed to compensate them. They consequently sued the fifth to seventh respondents, representing the relevant customs authorities and the Federal Government, before the Federal High Court, Abuja.

The trial court entered judgment for the claimants on 24 April 2012 and awarded N320 million in damages. The judgment debtors did not successfully appeal the judgment or satisfy the award. After several unsuccessful attempts by the judgment debtors to challenge or delay enforcement, the first to fourth respondents commenced garnishee proceedings against the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN). They maintained that funds belonging to the Nigerian Customs Service were domiciled with the CBN pursuant to the Federal Government’s Treasury Single Account (TSA) policy.

The Federal High Court made a garnishee order nisi and, after hearing the parties, made it absolute in the sum of N509 million, representing the judgment sum and accrued interest. The Court of Appeal, Abuja Division, affirmed that decision. The CBN then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Issues

1. Whether the CBN was a “public officer” within the meaning of section 84 of the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act, such that the prior consent of the Attorney-General of the Federation was required before the garnishee proceedings could be initiated.
2. Whether the courts below were right to treat the Nigerian Customs Service as the judgment debtor and to attach its funds, notwithstanding arguments concerning the name of the fifth respondent and the fact that the Nigerian Customs Service was not separately named as a party in the original action.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court unanimously dismissed the appeal. It held that garnishee proceedings are sui generis proceedings designed to enforce a monetary judgment where ordinary execution methods are inadequate. The process normally proceeds in two stages: first, a garnishee order nisi, requiring the garnishee to pay the specified sum unless sufficient cause is shown; and secondly, a garnishee order absolute, made where the garnishee fails to establish a lawful reason why the funds should not be attached.

The Court reaffirmed that a garnishee is a third party indebted to the judgment debtor or holding money belonging to the judgment debtor. Once an order nisi becomes absolute, it crystallises into a final order, not an interlocutory order. The garnishee is then liable to pay the amount stated in the order to the judgment creditor.

On section 84 of the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act, the Court applied its earlier decision in CBN v. Interstella Communications Ltd. It held that the CBN, when acting as banker to the Federal Government and maintaining government accounts, is not a public officer for the specific purpose contemplated by section 84. The relationship in that context is one of banker and customer. Consequently, the statutory requirement for the prior consent of the Attorney-General of the Federation did not arise.

The Court also held that the expression “public officer” in section 84 must be given the meaning judicially established by the Supreme Court. Earlier decisions concerned with broader statutory contexts, such as public officers’ protection, could not be used to displace the binding interpretation applicable to garnishee proceedings.

Court Findings

The Court determined that the Nigerian Customs Service is an agency of the Federal Government and an MDA required to operate within the TSA framework. The Customs, Immigration and Prisons Service Board was likewise an agency of the Federal Government. However, the Comptroller-General of Customs and the Attorney-General of the Federation were merely holders of appointive offices and were not, in themselves, Federal Government agencies.

The Court found that the first to fourth respondents had expressly deposed that the Nigerian Customs Service was the principal judgment debtor and that its funds were held by the CBN. The CBN did not effectively controvert those material depositions, including the assertion concerning the TSA. The statutory relationship between the relevant customs institutions therefore supported the attachment of the funds.

Relying on Order II rule 16 of the Judgment (Enforcement) Rules, the Court rejected the argument that enforcement was impossible because the Nigerian Customs Service was not separately named in the original proceedings. That rule permits a person who was not an original party, but against whom obedience to a judgment may be enforced, to be subjected to the same enforcement process as a party. Garnishee proceedings, by their special nature, can therefore operate against a third party holding the judgment debtor’s funds.

The Court further held that a respondent who wishes to contend that a lower court’s decision is wrong must file an appeal or cross-appeal. A respondent’s brief cannot properly be used to support the appellant’s challenge to the judgment. The sixth respondent’s brief, which argued in favour of allowing the appeal, was accordingly struck out.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeal and the garnishee order absolute made by the Federal High Court. The appeal was dismissed for want of merit, and the CBN was ordered to pay N5 million costs to the first to fourth respondents.

Significance

The decision strengthens the effectiveness of garnishee proceedings as a means of securing the fruits of a successful judgment. It confirms that the CBN cannot rely on section 84 of the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act merely because it is a statutory financial institution or holds public funds. It also clarifies that money belonging to a Federal Government agency and held under the TSA may be reached through garnishee proceedings where the judgment creditor establishes the relevant custodial relationship.

More broadly, the judgment emphasises that procedural rules should not be deployed to frustrate lawful enforcement. The Court warned legal practitioners against allowing court processes to be used to delay or defeat the fruits of judgment, stressing that persistent obstruction undermines public confidence in the administration of justice and the rule of law.