Garnishment or garnishee proceedings is a mode of debt recovery or enforcement of judgment debt. The procedure involves wage garnishment or attachment of funds in custody of a third party, referred to as a garnishee. Depending on your jurisdiction (Nigeria, US, and UK), the debt may include spousal or child support, credit card debt, student loans, and money judgments delivered by a court of competent jurisdiction.
In Nigeria, section 84 of the Sheriff’s and Civil Process Act (SCPA) requires the consent of the Attorney General (AG) to first be obtained before the commencement of garnishee proceedings for the attachment of money in the custody of a public officer. There are discordant opinions amongst lawyers and judges over whether the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) is a “public officer” within the context of section 84 SCPA to require the AG’s consent in garnishee proceedings against the apex Bank?
On 15 December 2017 the Supreme Court decision in CBN v. Interstella appeared to have settled the issue, but the controversy rages on with conflicting decisions and interpretations in subsequent Court of Appeal cases. I had earlier examined the issue, among other interesting issues arising from garnishee proceedings in my book, Garnishment Law and Practice in Nigeria, UK, and US. (2023). Recently, I re-read some of the conflicting decisions of the Court of Appeal (CBN v. Ezeanya, CBN v. Hydro Air Pty, CBN v. Njemanze, CBN v. Zakari, CBN v. Lafferi, CBN v. Okon, CBN v. Kakuri, CBN v. Tivfa, CBN v. Adejoh, CBN v. Kruggerbrent, CBN v. Barbedos et al). Weighing both sides of the arguments across the divide a few points reinforced my choice as to which side had a more convincing approach to settling the disceptation. I decided to lend more ink to the controversy in the hope of offering clarity and a practical resolution in this paper.
WODI & WODI 