Background
This case concerns an appeal by Zenith Bank against a garnishee order made by the Federal High Court in Calabar on 7 October 2009. The trial court issued a garnishee order absolute in favor of the judgment creditor, Etubom I. E. Archibong, despite the appellant's absence and lack of representation during the proceedings. The bank contended that it had a right to be heard and that the failure to consider its affidavit to show cause constituted a breach of its right to fair hearing.
Issues
The core issues for determination in this case include:
- Whether the trial court’s failure to hear the garnishee or consider its affidavit amounted to a breach of natural justice and the right to fair hearing as enshrined in Section 36(1) of the Constitution.
- Whether the trial court had jurisdiction to proceed with the case given the clerical errors noted during the proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that:
- A court must be competent and properly constituted, with all required conditions met, to exert jurisdiction. Proceeding when jurisdiction is absent results in a nullity.
- Natural justice demands a party must be heard; the failure to allow the garnishee to present its case constituted a violation of this principle.
- Failure to issue a fresh hearing notice after correcting an error constitutes a fundamental vice, rendering subsequent orders null.
Court Findings
The Court of Appeal found that:
- The trial court lacked jurisdiction when it proceeded to make the garnishee order absolute without hearing the appellant, especially after recognizing a clerical error in the return date.
- The failure to issue a fresh hearing notice to the garnishee prior to making the order absolute denied the bank its right to fair hearing.
- Proceedings held after the error correction were invalid due to lack of jurisdiction, thus rendering the garnishee order a nullity.
Conclusion
The appeal was allowed, and the order absolute made by the trial court was declared a nullity. The case was sent back to the Federal High Court for retrial with a different judge.
Significance
This case is significant as it underscores the fundamental principles of jurisdiction and fair hearing in Nigerian law. It clarifies that any court, regardless of how competent it may seem, must adhere to procedural fairness and ensure all parties are duly notified and heard, especially in cases involving garnishee orders.”