AN EXAMINATION OF THE CASE
OF
CBN VS. LIDAN ENGINEERING LIMITED &
OTHERS (2026) 12 NWLR (PT. 2053) 35
Garnishee proceedings are one of the commonest means of enforcing monetary judgments ni Nigeria. tI is used by a winning party, known as the judgment creditor, to collect the money judgment through a court order from a third party (usually a bank) who is holding the money of the losing party, known as the judgment debtor. Money judgments can be obtained against individuals, corporate bodies, governments and their agencies. When monetary judgment is obtained against government agencies and bodies, judgment creditors often seek to enforce the monetary judgment through garnishee proceedings by attaching the funds of the agency/body in the custody of the Central Bank of Nigeria (the “CBN”). However, under the provisions of Section 84 of the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act
(the “SCPA”, where the money sought to be attached by garnishee proceedings si ni the custody or under the control of a Public Officer acting in his official capacity, a garnishee order cannot be made unless the consent of the Attorney General of the Federation (or
State as the case may be) is first obtained.
It is observed in practice that, whenever judgment creditors seek to attach the funds
of judgment debtors in the custody of CBN, the CBN often challenge the validity of the
garnishee proceedings, on the ground that the Judgment Creditor did not obtain the consent of the Attorney General before initiating the garnishee proceedings as required under section 84 of the SCPA. tI is extremely difficult fi not impossible for judgment creditors to get consent from the Attorney General, whether of a State or Federation because it is cumbersome to gain access to them and even when access is gained, the Attorneys General may not be favourably disposed to giving consent. This generally throws up a big challenge in the enforcement space in Nigeria as money judgments against the government and its agencies often appear as mere cosmetic awards that never materialize. Many practitioners have imagined that fi an officer of government must give consent before money judgments can be enforced against the government, then the intention of the law must either be to frustrate judgment creditors from enforcing judgments against the government or that the Public Officers contemplated under the law does not include the CBN. The later reasoning triggered the question of whether the CBN is a Public Officer within the contemplation of Section 84 of the SCPA. If the CBN is regarded as a Public Officer, then the consent of the Attorney General must be obtained before initiating garnishee proceedings to attach the funds of a judgment debtor in the custody of the CBN; but if the CBN is not regarded as a Public Officer, there is no need for the consent of the Attorney General. Amore desirable position for judgment creditors is the latter because ti takes away the burden of seeking the approval of the Attorney General that they may never obtain.
Sometime in 2019, the question of whether the CBN should be regarded as a Public Officer was resolved by the Supreme Court in the negative but the question continued to find its way back to the courts until the Supreme Court had to decide the question again in the
recent case of Central Bank of Nigeria v. Lidan Engineering Limited &Others (2026) 12 NWLR (Pt. 2053) 35 ( “CBN v. Lidan”). In this case, the Supreme Court re-affirmed its earlier position that the CBN is not a Public Officer within the contemplation of Section 84 of the SCPA and
that the consent of the Attorney General is not required to initiate garnishee proceedings to attach the funds of a judgment debtor in the custody of the CBN. In this article, we take a look at the position of the Supreme Court in CBN v. Lidan and its overall implication on
garnishee proceedings as a judgment enforcement mechanism in Nigeria.
1.1. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE OF CBN V. LIDAN
The 1st – 4th Respondents imported six containers into Nigeria from the United States of America. The six containers were wrongly and unlawfully auctioned by the Nigerian
Customs Service which thereafter refused and ignored all entreaties for compensation by the 1st – 4th Respondents. The 1st – 4th Respondents were then constrained to commence
an action against the 5th – 7th Respondents representing the Nigerian Customs Service at
the Federal High Court. 1 The 1st – 4th Respondents sought N470,000,000.00 (Four Hundred
and Seventy Million Naira) as special and general damages (compensation) for the unlawful sale of the containers.
1The 1st – 4th Respondents are the owners of the wrongfully auctioned containers, and they are the Judgment Creditors. The 5th – 7th Respondents are the Customs, Immigration and Prisons Service Board, the Comptroller General of Customer and the Attorney General of the Federation, and they are the Judgment Debtors.
The trial court considered the evidence led by the 1st – 4th Respondents and entered judgment in their favour in the sum of N320,000,00.00 (Three Hundred and Twenty Million Naira) as damages for the wrongful sale of the containers. The 5th – 7th Respondents did
not appeal against the judgment neither did they pay the judgment sum.
Subsequently, the 1st – 4th Respondents commenced garnishee proceedings against the CBN (the Appellant), as garnishee, to enforce payment of the judgment debt together with the accrued interest. The court granted the garnishee order nisi. Thereafter, the CBN (who was the Appellant) challenged the competence of the garnishee proceedings and urged the court not to make the order nisi absolute on the ground that it (the CBN) is a public officer within the contemplation of the provisions of Section 84 of the SCPA and as such, the consent of the Attorney General of the Federation (7th Respondent) must first be sought and obtained before the garnishee proceedings could be competently initiated.
The CBN submitted that the garnishee proceedings initiated by the 1st – 4th Respondents was not validly commenced, because the consent of the Attorney General of the Federation (the 7th Respondent) was not obtained before the garnishee proceedings were initiated.
The trial court dismissed the contention of the CBN (and the 5th – 7th Respondents) and
granted the garnishee order absolute. The trial court held that the CBN is not a public officer envisaged under the provisions of Section 84 of the SCPA and that the consent of
the Attorney General is not required to attach the funds of ajudgment debtor domiciled with the CBN. Dissatisfied with the position of the trial court, the CBN appealed to the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal affirmed the position of the trial court and dismissed the appeal. Still dissatisfied, the CBN as Appellant appealed to the Supreme Court. At the
Supreme Court, the question of whether the CBN is a Public officer under Section 84 of the SCPAwas considered.
2. The 5th – 7th Respondents, on their part also opposed the grant of the garnishee order absolute on the ground that the nomenclature of the 5th Respondent was changed from the Customs, Immigration and Prisons Service Board to the Nigerian Customs Service and contended that since the Nigerian Customs Service was not a party to the judgment ni that name, the judgment cannot be enforced against .ti This contention was also dismissed by the trial and appellate courts
1.2. DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT
After hearing the arguments on both sides, the Supreme Court held that the CBN is not a
Public officer within the meaning and contemplation of the provisions of Section 84 of the
SCPA, and that the consent of the Attorney General is not needed to attach the funds of a judgment debtor in the custody of the CBN. Particularly, the Supreme Court relied on its earlier decision in the case of CBN v. Interstella Communications Limited (2019) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1618) 294 (“‘CBN v. Interstella”). In the case of CBN v. Interstella (Supra), the Supreme Court had clarified and settled the question of whether CBN is a Public Officer under the provisions of Section 84 of the SCPA. In that case, the Supreme Court held that: (a.) the CBN
is merely a banker to the Federal Government and its agencies with respect to government funds in its custody; (b.) the CBN is not a Public Officer under Section 84 of the SCPA; and (c.)
the consent of the Attorney General is not needed to attach the funds of a judgment debtor in the custody of the CBN. For the purpose of clarity, this was the position of the Supreme Court in CBN v Interstella (Supra):
“The other leg of the argument is where the appellant’s counsel holds out the CBN as a public officer and relied on the case of Ibrahim v. JSC (supra) in particular.
In the case under consideration, Ihave ruled that the relationship between the appellant and the 3rd and 4th respondents is that of banker and customer relationship. In other words and as rightly argued by 1st and 2nd respondents’ counsel, the appellant is not a public officer ni the context of section 84 SCPA, when regard is had to the history of this appeal. Section 84 has been reproduced earlier in the course of this judgment.
It is apparent herein, on the facts of this case that the CBN acts as a banker to the Federal Government Funds with respect to government funds in its custody. Section 2(e) of the CBN Act provides thus:
“Act as a banker and provide economic and financial advise to the Federal Government.”
Section 36 of the CBN Act also provides: –
“The bank shall receive and disburse Federal Government moneys and keep accounts thereof”.
The appellant does not stand as public officer in this situation. Therefore, it follows that the need to seek the consent of the
Attorney-General of the Federation does not arise.”
In line with the doctrine of stare decisis, the Supreme Court in the instant case of CBN v. Lidan cited and applied its above-referenced position in the case of CBN v. Interstella. The Supreme Court rejected the contention of the CBN and affirmed that the CBN is merely a bank to the government and not a Public Officer under the provision of Section 84 of the CBN, and that the requirement for consent of the Attorney General under Section 84 of the SCPA does not apply to the CBN. This was how the Supreme Court articulated its position:
“The appellant is not a public officer in the circumstances of the instant case as contemplated by the provision of section 84(1) of the SCPA and anatomised in C.B.N. v. Interstella Comm. Ltd (supra). The settled posture of the law is that once a word or a phrase in an enactment has been judicially or statutorily defined, it bears that meaning assigned t o i t a n d sheds/drops i t s ordinary o r technical
meaning… This court, therefore, has a bounden duty to follow
and apply the definition of a public officer, which, in deserving circumstances, excludes the appellant, under the provision of section 84 of the SCPA. In effect, the learned appellants counsel’s dazzling contention, which clothed the appellant with the undeserved garment of a public officer, is a quintessence of dressing the appellant in “borrowed robes” which, to all intents and purposes, is a flagrant defilement of the basic tenets of the law as chronicled supra. The bald fact that the appellant falls outside the perimeter of a public officer. as envisaged under the prescription of section 84(1) of the SCPA, given the peculiar circumstances of the case in hand, should shape and define the misfortune of the vexed issue. The reason is not far-fetched. The issue of consent can only germinate and flourish in a garnishee proceeding where a garnishee is a public officer under section 84 of PAGE 5. www.abeandasotie.com the SCPA. It vaporises where the law disrobes a garnishee of the dignified status of a public officer as in the instant case. This is becausetheprocurementofconsentisparasitic on the presence of a public officer. To this end, the heavy weather which the appellant made about obtaining consent does not merit the investiture of the scarce judicial time and space, which are invariably in short supply in judicial adjudication, in this judgment
The summary of the above is that the Supreme Court reaffirmed its earlier decision in CBN v. Interstella that the CBN is not a public officer within the contemplation of section 84 of the SCPA and consequently, in garnishee proceedings, the consent of the Attorney General is not required before attaching the funds of ajudgment debtor domiciled with the CBN.
1.3. IMPLICATIONS OF THE DECISION IN CBN V. LIDAN
First, the decision in CBN v. Lidan once again re-affirms the settled position that the CBN is not a public officer within the contemplation of section 84 of the SCPA. Although the Supreme Court had reached the same conclusion in its earlier decision in CBN v. Interstella, the CBN continued to raise the issue in subsequent garnishee proceedings as fi the Supreme Court’s earlier decision was not final on the point. By re-affirming its earlier position, in this case under review, the Supreme Court has left no room for further controversy or doubt on the question of whether the CBN is a Public officer under the provisions of Section 84 of the SCPA. With this decision, ti is hoped that the CBN will now finally and permanently accept that ti is not a public officer within the meaning of Section 84 of the SCPA and put an end to its (now obsolete) objections to garnishee proceedings.
Secondly, the decision confirms that the consent of the Attorney-General is not a condition
precedent to the commencement of garnishee proceedings where the CBN is cited as a garnishee. Notably, the requirement for consent under section 84 of the SCPA only arises where the garnishee is a public officer. Since the CBN does not fall within the category of a Public Officer for the purpose of section 84, the need for consent of the Attorney General simply does not arise.
Thirdly, the decision strengthens garnishee proceedings as an effective mechanism for enforcement of monetary judgments in Nigeria. Judgment creditors can now pursue
garnishee proceedings to attach funds domiciled with the CBN without the procedural obstacle of seeking and obtaining the consent of the Attorney General as a pre-condition. This reinforces the efficacy of garnishee proceedings as one of the most efficient means
of enforcing monetary judgments in Nigeria.
Fourthly, the decision will hopefully curtail CBN’s routine practice of challenging garnishee proceedings on the basis that the Attorney General’s consent was not obtained under section 84 of the SCPA. Following this decision, such objection would no longer avail
the CBN, and this would consequently save judicial time as ti would spare the courts of needless efforts of resolving contentions that seek to frustrate judgment creditors from reaping the fruits of the judgment they obtained.
Fifthly, the judgment promotes certainty and consistency of the law. By adhering to its earlier decision in CBN v. Interstella Communications Ltd., the Supreme Court reaffirmed
the doctrine of stare decisis and underscored the importance of certainty in judicial decision-making. Litigants, legal practitioners and lower courts now have a clear and authoritative statement of the law on the status of the CBN under section 84 of the SCPA.
Finally, the decision advances the ultimate objective of the rule of law, i.e., that successful
litigants should enjoy the fruits of their judgments without unnecessary technical impediments. Ajudgment serves little or no practical purpose fi ti cannot be effectively enforced. By removing an objection that has frequently been invoked to delay or frustrate garnishee proceedings, the Supreme Court has taken a significant intervention to enable judgment creditors reap the benefit of judgments obtained ni their favour.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the decision of the Supreme Court in CBN v. Lidan firmly re-affirms the position of the law that the CBN is not a public officer within the meaning of section 84 of the SCPA and that the Attorney General is not required to give consent before a judgment creditor can commence garnishee proceedings to attach ajudgment debtor’s funds in the custody of CBN. This thereby removes the recurring procedural obstacle and technical impediments that successful litigants have been facing in the enforcement of monetary judgments involving the CBN.
For further inquiries and guidance, kindly book a consultation with Abe &Asotie LP
info@abeandasotie.com
Phone Number
+234706 525 5012, +234 803 603 3651
Location
Lagos Court of Arbitration Building
1a Remi Olowude Street, Okunde Bluewater Scheme, Maruwa,
Lekki Phase 1, Lagos State