CHIEF V. C. OBUMSELI & VINCO ENGINEERING SERVICES (NIGERIA) LIMITED V. CHINYELUGO P. UWAKWE (2019)

Background

This appeal concerned the procedure for determining an interpleader claim where property seized in execution of a judgment was claimed by a person who was not the judgment debtor. The appellants were judgment creditors who had obtained a default judgment from the High Court of the former Bendel State, now Delta State. That judgment was registered in the High Court of Anambra State, and the appellants subsequently sought to levy execution against the movable property of the judgment debtor.

During execution, an Opel Omega 2.0 motor vehicle, registration number BE 318 ENU, was attached. The vehicle was claimed by a third party, Madam T. Uwakwe, who was later substituted by Chinyelugo P. Uwakwe following an order of the Court of Appeal. The Sheriff of the Onitsha High Court consequently instituted interpleader proceedings under section 34 of the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act. The claimant filed an affidavit asserting ownership of the vehicle and attached the relevant vehicle particulars in support of her claim.

The trial court accepted the evidence and ordered that the vehicle be released to the claimant. The judgment creditors appealed to the Court of Appeal, arguing principally that the trial court had adopted an incompetent procedure by determining the interpleader summons on affidavit evidence rather than by taking oral evidence. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. The judgment creditors then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Issues

1. Whether the lower courts were right to affirm the procedure adopted by the trial court in determining the interpleader proceedings on affidavit evidence.
2. Whether the appellants were denied fair hearing because the trial court did not conduct the proceedings through oral testimony and cross-examination.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the decision ordering the release of the vehicle. The Court held that interpleader summons procedure applies where goods or chattels belonging to a person other than the judgment debtor are seized under a writ of execution and that person comes forward to claim them. As a general rule, the claimant is treated as the plaintiff, while the judgment creditor is treated as the defendant. The burden therefore rests initially on the claimant to establish title to the attached property.

However, neither section 34 of the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act nor Order VI of the Judgment Enforcement Rules mandates that interpleader proceedings must invariably be determined by viva voce evidence. The provisions regulate the initiation of the proceedings, notice to the parties, filing of particulars and hearing, but do not prescribe oral testimony as the exclusive mode of proof. Affidavit evidence may therefore be used where it is sufficient to resolve the dispute. Oral evidence may be received where affidavit evidence produces material or irreconcilable conflicts, but it is not an automatic requirement in every interpleader proceeding.

Court Findings

The Court found that the claimant’s affidavit and the vehicle documents adequately supported her assertion of ownership. The appellants did not file a counter-affidavit to contradict the depositions, despite having the opportunity to do so. The Supreme Court reiterated that unchallenged depositions in an affidavit are generally deemed admitted. In the absence of a competing evidential account, the trial court was entitled to determine the matter summarily on the materials before it.

The Court also rejected the appellants’ reliance on Kala v. Potiskum as authority for the proposition that oral evidence alone was compulsory. That case did not decide that interpleader proceedings must always be conducted through viva voce testimony. Similarly, the principle that departure from a statutorily prescribed procedure may be fatal did not assist the appellants because no statutory requirement for oral evidence had been breached.

On fair hearing, the Court held that the appellants’ complaint was self-inflicted. Their counsel voluntarily declined to file a counter-affidavit on the ground that the procedure adopted by the trial court was wrong. Counsel also declined the opportunity to cross-examine the claimant. A party who elects not to use procedural opportunities provided by the court cannot subsequently complain that he was denied a hearing.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court unanimously held that the appeal lacked merit. The judgment of the Court of Appeal, which had affirmed the trial court’s order releasing the vehicle to the claimant, was upheld. Costs of N500,000 were awarded against the appellants in favour of the respondent.

Significance

The decision confirms the flexible and substantive approach applicable to interpleader proceedings in Nigeria. It clarifies that the statutory framework does not impose a rigid requirement that every ownership claim involving attached property be proved by oral evidence. Where an affidavit, supported by documentary exhibits, establishes ownership and is not challenged, the court may decide the matter summarily. The ruling also reinforces the distinction between affidavit evidence and pleadings: affidavits constitute evidence for applications and interlocutory proceedings, while oral testimony becomes particularly relevant where material conflicts cannot fairly be resolved on the written materials. Finally, the case illustrates that fair hearing is not a licence for a party to deliberately abstain from filing responsive processes or participating in cross-examination and later complain of procedural injustice.