Invalidity Of A Post-No-Debit Order From A Court Without Jurisdiction And Sundry Issues: A Critique Of The Court's Decision In Emmanuel Chidera Onuegbu V. Moniepoint Microfinance Bank Limited

1. Introduction

On 26th September, 2024, the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory ("FCT") delivered judgment in the case of Emmanuel Chidera Onuegbu v. Moniepoint Microfinance Bank Limited ("Onuegbu's Case"),¹ and resolved that the Fundamental Human Rights of the Applicant to own movable and immovable properties in any part of Nigeria was eviscerated by the Post-No-Debit ("PND") restriction placed on the Applicant's Bank Accounts by the Respondent. The Court held that the PND Order made by the Upper Area Court, Taraba State was void because it emanated from a court that is bereft of jurisdiction to issue the said Order. The Court also noted that a bank must verify that a Court Order is valid and emanates from a court of competent jurisdiction before taking any step on a customer's account. Additionally, the Court held that the said PND Order, being a public document, was void for non-certification.

As commendable as the Judgment is, there are pressing legal issues that must be dissected and critiqued for the development of law in Nigeria. These issues include the declaration of the PND Order from the Upper Area Court, Taraba State as "void" and "invalid" for emanating from a court without jurisdiction; the declaration of the PND Order from the Upper Area Court as "void" on the ground of inadmissibility; the placement of a duty on the Bank to "verify" a PND Order before taking any step on the customer's account; and the inadmissibility of the PND Order (a public document) attached to the Counter Affidavit due to its "non-certification". This legal approach aligns with the wise counsel that "if there are issues with judgments, the right thing is to critique them in law journals, not through media attacks."² It is in obedience to the foregoing wise counsel that Onuegbu's Case is critiqued.

2. Case Summary of Onuegbu v. Moniepoint Microfinance Bank Limited

The Applicant (Mr. Onuegbu), via an Originating Motion on Notice, instituted a Fundamental Rights Enforcement suit against the Respondent (Moniepoint Microfinance Bank Limited) and prayed for a declaration that the Respondent's act of placing a Post-No-Debit restriction³ on his Bank Accounts without any legal justification, thereby denying him access to his funds in the said Accounts amounted to a breach of his fundamental rights guaranteed under section 44 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) and article 14 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights, 1981. The Applicant sought several compensatory reliefs in the form of general and exemplary damages and also sought an order restraining the Respondent and its cronies from placing further PND restrictions on his Accounts.

A summary of the case of the Applicant, as disclosed in his Affidavit before the Court, is that on 8th April, 2024, while he was trying to carry out a transaction on the Respondent's online platform, he discovered that he could no longer access his Account. Having exhausted all known options to access his Bank Account, the Applicant contacted the Respondent via its online channel requesting to know why he was unable to access his Account. The Applicant further stated that the placement of the restrictions and reason(s) for doing so were never communicated to him by the Respondent.

Miffed by the position of the Applicant, the Respondent, in its Counter Affidavit, stated that it was served with an Order of Court dated 4th April, 2024 made pursuant to an application filed by First Bank Nigeria Limited directing it to place PND on bank accounts listed in the Schedule attached to the Order as well as providing the "Know Your Customer (KYC)" documents of the account owners. The Respondent further stated that the Applicant's Bank Accounts were listed in the said Schedule and covered by the said Order of Court. Being a law-abiding corporate citizen, the Respondent complied with the court Order by placing the PND on the Applicant's account. It is the case of the Respondent that it informed the Applicant, via email, about the court's restriction of his Bank Accounts.

In resolving the knotty issues in this case, the High Court of the FCT held as follows:

3. Commentary

The Judge on the Bench is not imbued with infallibility.⁵ This explains why the law has created pathways for impugning the decision of a judge.⁶ Confirming the pathway created by way of "an appeal", the Supreme Court in the oft-cited case of Adegoke Motors Limited v. Dr. Babatunde Adesanya,⁷ evangelized the view of the fallibility of judicial officers and the need to call for the overruling of a decision reached per incuriam, in the following words:

In the same vein, "legal scholarship" or "literary criticism" has been identified as another pathway for scrutinizing the decision of a judge. A learned commentator graphically captured this point in a commentary below:

On this premise, it is deferentially argued by this author in the succeeding subsections of this paper that the decision of the High Court of the FCT in Onuegbu's Case was reached per incuriam.¹⁰ In an attempt to x-ray this decision, the comments shall be divided into four broad sub-headings, namely:

1. The declaration of the PND Order from the Upper Area Court, Taraba State as "void" and "invalid" for emanating from a court without jurisdiction;
2. The declaration of the PND Order from the Upper Area Court as "void" on the ground of inadmissibility;
3. The placement of a duty on the Bank to "verify" a PND Order before taking any step on the customer's account; and
4. The inadmissibility of the PND Order (a public document) attached to the Counter Affidavit due to its "non-certification".

3.1 The Declaration of the PND Order from the Upper Area Court, Taraba State as "Void" and "Invalid" for Emanating from a Court Without Jurisdiction

The phrase, "Court Order", denotes an authoritative and non-negotiable mandate, precept, command, direction, rule or regulation made or entered in writing by a court and not included in a Judgment.¹¹ The High Court of the FCT in Onuegbu's Case appraised the PND Order (Exhibit AR1) handed down by another Court (the Upper Area Court, Taraba State) and held that the said Court Order was "void" and "invalid" because it emanated from a court that had no jurisdiction to make the said Order. While it is not in doubt that the Upper Area Court in Taraba State is bereft of jurisdiction to make a PND Order,¹² the bold move by the High Court of the FCT in Onuegbu's Case to strike down the said PND Order as "void" for being made without jurisdiction is certainly novel and inconsistent with settled judicial precedents in Nigeria.

Firstly, there is a presumption of correctness in favour of a court's order or judgment.¹³ Unless and until that presumption is rebutted and the order or judgment is set aside, it subsists, remains valid and binding; and must be obeyed.¹⁴ The position therefore is that a party who is aware of a court order, whether null or void, regular or irregular, valid or invalid cannot be permitted to disobey it. His unqualified obligation is to obey it unless and until that order has been set aside.¹⁵ It would be suicidal for the legal profession for parties or their lawyers to decide whether a court order is null or valid; regular or irregular; and void or proper.

To this end, the dictum in U. A. C. v. Macfoy¹⁶ often quoted to the effect that there is no need to set aside an order which is void because it is a nullity, is not only an obiter but also per incuriam.¹⁷ For as long as that order remains extant, it behooves a party to submit to it; just as a court is entitled to rely on it and enforce it. This position was better expressed by the Supreme Court in the case of Victor J. Rossek v. African Continental Bank Limited¹⁸ and the reasoning is reproduced in extenso:

In this wise, and contrary to the position reached by the Court in Onuegbu's Case, the PND Order (Exhibit AR1) made by the Upper Area Court sitting in Jalingo, Taraba State, remains binding on both Mr. Onuegbu and Moniepoint Microfinance Bank Limited until it is vacated.

Secondly, the option open to a party against whom an ex parte order is made is to apply to the court that made the order to vacate it or appeal against the order so that it might be set aside.²⁰ This is because such an order remains valid and binding unless and until it is set aside by the lower court itself where it acted without jurisdiction²¹ or by an appellate court.²² It is thus not only desirable but also necessary to have such decisions set aside before any act is built upon it. In the case of Victor J. Rossek v. African Continental Bank Limited,²³ the Supreme Court appositely made the following observations:

In the case of Egbuziem v. N. R. C.,²⁵ the Court of Appeal was very stern in stating this position when the Court held:

From this juridical survey, it can be deciphered that the Court in Onuegbu's Case was bereft of powers to void or invalidate the PND Order handed down by the Upper Area Court, Taraba State due to all or any of the following reasons:

1. The court with both appellate and supervisory jurisdiction over the decision of the Upper Area Court, Taraba State is the High Court of Taraba State and not the High Court of the FCT. Consequently, the High Court of the FCT cannot suo motu expand its territorial jurisdiction and exercise appellate and/or supervisory jurisdiction to void a Court Order emanating from the Upper Area Court, Taraba State.
2. The case before the High Court of the FCT was a distinct suit (a Fundamental Rights Enforcement Matter) which does not concern the appellate or supervisory jurisdiction of the said Court.
3. Assuming but without conceding that the approach taken by the High Court of the FCT is even a permissible procedure in law, there was no specific prayer in the Fundamental Rights Enforcement Suit for the setting aside of the subsisting PND Order.²⁷
4. The Upper Area Court, Taraba State and the High Court of the FCT are not courts of co-ordinate jurisdiction. Other than sitting as an appellate court or exercising supervisory jurisdiction, a court of law only has the inherent jurisdiction to set aside the null and void decision of a court of co-ordinate jurisdiction or its own null and void decision or order.²⁸ Consequently, Mr. Onuegbu who was affected by the ex parte PND Order ought to have applied to the Upper Area Court, Taraba State to have the said PND Order vacated before the return date or before the date named as the terminal date of the order.²⁹

3.2 The Declaration of the PND Order from the Upper Area Court as "Void" on the Ground of Inadmissibility

The Court in Onuegbu's Case declared Exhibit AR1 (the uncertified PND Order) as "void" for "non-certification in accordance with the provision of section 104 of the Evidence Act 2011." This ineluctably means that the Court struck down the PND Order and tagged it as "void" in the course of deciding the admissibility or otherwise of the said document. It is the respectful view of this author that the High Court of the FCT, in reaching such a worrisome conclusion, muddled up two distinct principles of law: the first, being the rule on "void documents"; and the second, being the rule on "admissibility of documents".

Prefatorily, when a thing is void, it does not exist.³⁰ The word "void" means null, nugatory, invalid, ineffectual, having no legal force or binding effect and being unable, in law, to support the purpose for which it was intended.³¹ In its strictest sense, it means that which has no force and effect and is incapable of being enforced by law or has no legal or binding force.³² This legal exercise reveals that the validity of a document is not a matter of admissibility but one that touches on the forensic utility or probative value of such a document. It follows therefore, that for a court to possess the vires to declare a document void, such document must first be admitted and received in evidence by the court. Authenticating the foregoing position, the Court of Appeal in the case of Alhaji S. Adeyemi Olowolaramo v. Mr. Julius Chinedu Umechukwu,³³ beautifully summarized the position as follows:

In the context in which the above historic lines were written, a court of law is not expected to dive into the issue of validity or to declare a document "void" while determining the admissibility or otherwise of such a document because such a judicial exercise will be akin to placing the 'cart before the horse'. This expressive rationale is predicated on the following jurisprudential foundations:

1. The Test of Admissibility: For a court to consider the weight or probative value of a document, such a document must first be deemed relevant and admissible.³⁵ Without being admitted, it does not form part of the evidence before the court and remains outside the purview of judicial evaluation and reliance.³⁶
2. The Test of Vires: Courts are bound by the materials presented by parties before them.³⁷ If a document is not admitted in evidence or is excluded as an exhibit by the Court, the court is bereft of vires to evaluate it; pronounce on its validity; and/or act on it³⁸ because the said document is irrelevant and goes to no issue.³⁹
3. The Test of Fair Hearing: The act of declaring a document void at the preliminary stage of deciding admissibility and without a formal admission of such a document would undermine the procedural safeguards designed to ensure fairness and due process. This could infringe upon the principles of fair hearing because the opposing may not have had an opportunity to contest or join issues on the validity of such a document.

3.3 The Placement of a Duty on the Bank to "Verify" a PND Order Before Taking Any Step on the Customer's Account

The High Court of the FCT in Onuegbu's Case also held that PND Orders from the court "must be valid and from a court of competent jurisdiction as provided in Section 251(1)(d) and (3) of the CFRN" and that "the bank must verify such orders before taking any step on the customers' account". With the greatest respect, this neoteric advocacy for the verification of Court Orders by banks is out of harmony with the extant position of the law in Nigeria and is, unfortunately, incorrect.

It is the view of this author that while a bank is duty-bound to exercise reasonable care and skill in carrying out its part concerning operations within its contracts with its customers,⁴⁰ this duty, does not extend to verifying, determining and/or ascertaining whether a PND Order is valid and emanates from a court of competent jurisdiction.⁴¹ Such powers are conferred only on a court of law by the provisions of section 6(1) – (3) of Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended). This position was amplified by the Court of Appeal in the case of Guaranty Trust Bank v. Ebisi Augustine Chijioke⁴² thus:

The above well-reasoned decision by the Court of Appeal cremates the position of the High Court of the FCT in Onuegbu's Case; promotes the view that banks in Nigeria do not have judicial powers to "verify" Court Orders; and properly delimits the duty of a bank to exercise reasonable care and skill when served with a PND Order.

3.4 The Inadmissibility of the PND Order (a Public Document) Attached to the Counter Affidavit Due to its "Non-certification"

The High Court of the FCT in Onuegbu's Case also voided the said PND Order for being an uncertified public document in accordance with the provisions of section 104 of the Evidence Act, 2011 (as amended). On this point, it is necessary to state that the said holding of the Court, with the greatest respect, does not represent the position of the law in Nigeria.

Under Nigerian law, an uncertified public document attached to an affidavit is admissible.⁴⁴ This is because public documents exhibited as secondary copies in affidavit evidence cannot necessarily be certified true copies and a document exhibited in an affidavit is already an exhibit before the Court, being part of the affidavit evidence which a Court is entitled to look at and consider in administering justice. In the case of Kogi State House of Assembly & Ors. v. Elder Simon Achuba & Ors.,⁴⁵ the Court of Appeal cleared the air as follows:

The position of the Court of Appeal on this issue in the case of Eke v. Osah,⁴⁷ is quite apposite. The Court succinctly noted that:

In the light of the foregoing authorities, the High Court of the FCT in Onuegbu's Case should not have subjected Exhibit AR1 (the PND Order) attached to the Counter Affidavit of the Respondent to the test of admissibility. Instead, the Court should have subjected Exhibit AR1 (the PND Order) to the test of credibility and made its reasons known for either being satisfied or not, with the credibility of the attached PND Order.⁴⁹ This is because the law does not permit any objection to be raised to the admissibility of a document attached to an affidavit.⁵⁰

4. Conclusion

Until they are set aside, the law commands all natural and juristic persons to obey court orders notwithstanding their reservations about the jurisdiction of the Court that made such orders. To this end, great care must be taken to ensure that banks and other financial institutions in Nigeria are not sent on a perilous verifying voyage to castrate and neutralize the efficacy of court orders and/or to desecrate the dignity, sanctity and majesty of courts. Courts of law, while trying to do justice between parties, must decide cases in accordance with settled principles of law.⁵¹ In this wise, and contrary to the decision reached by the High Court of the FCT in Onuegbu's Case, the following legal conclusions remain unassailable:

1. A PND Order from a court of law is binding until it is vacated, even if it appears that the Court may have acted without jurisdiction.
2. A document cannot be declared void on the ground of inadmissibility. The validity of a document has to do with the probative value and not the admissibility of a document.
3. There is no duty on a bank to verify, determine and/or ascertain whether a PND Order emanates from a court with jurisdiction, except, where on the face of the PND Order, there are doubts that it emanates from a court of law. Even in such a situation, the bank is only expected to "investigate" to ascertain "if such a court exists" before acting on the court order.⁵²
4. An uncertified PND Order (a public document) attached to an affidavit is admissible in law.

5. Recommendation

It is the view of this author that a bank or a financial institution that is served with a PND Order from a court without jurisdiction or pursuant to a non-existent law need not throw its hands in the air. Such a bank can promptly apply to the Court that made the seemingly irregular PND Order for same to be set aside, especially where the bank or financial institution was a party to a decided case that such legal issues were earlier resolved. This position finds ample support in the decision of the Court of Appeal in Guaranty Trust Bank v. Ebisi Augustine Chijioke,⁵³ where the following was said:

Though upon being served with the Banker's Orders unlawfully procured by the 2nd Respondent, the appellant had no judicial powers to determine if the Magistrate Court that made the Order was a court of competent jurisdiction but having been a party to the Judgments ... that declared that a Magistrate Court has no power to issue a Banker's Orders either by virtue of section 89 of the Evidence Act or by non-existent Banker's Orders Act 1847, the appellant in this appeal ought to have taken urgent steps to have the Order vacated.⁵⁴ (Emphasis added)

Footnotes

* David Andy Essien, Associate, Cross-Departmental, S. P. A. Ajibade & Co., Abuja, Nigeria.

1. Unreported Judgment in Suit No. FCT/HC/CV/2167/2024 delivered by Honourable Justice Njideka K. Nwosu-Iheme, J. of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja on 26th September 2024 (hereinafter referred to as "Onuegbu's Case").

2. See, Sobechi Obasi, 'Wole Olanipekun Urges Lawyers to Critically Examine Judgments Before Criticising Judiciary' (The Metro Lawyer, 23 December 2024) (https://themetrolawyers.com/wole-olanipekun-urges-lawyers-to-critically-examine-judgments-before-criticizing-judiciary/) accessed 10 January 2025.

3. This is a directive that restricts a bank customer from withdrawing funds, making transfers or any other debits from his bank account. The funds in the bank account remain frozen and inaccessible during the lifespan of the restriction.

4. Op. cit., pp. 13 – 14 of the unreported Judgment in Onuegbu's Case (n2).

5. See, David Andy Essien, 'Role of Judges in the Due Administration of Justice in Nigeria' (The Nigeria Lawyer, 20 October 2021) (https://thenigerialawyer.com/role-of-judges-in-the-due-administration-of-justice-in-nigeria/) accessed 10 January 2025.

6. This legal reality was amplified by the Learned Jurist, Honourable Justice Kayode Eso, JSC, in the case of Architects Registration Council of Nigeria (No. 2) In Re: O. C. Majoroh v. Professor M. A. Fassassi (1987) LPELR – 539 (SC) at p. 6, para. D, in the following words: "The Maxim is De fide Et officio non recipitur quaestio, sed de scientiative error juris sive facti – The honesty and integrity of a Judge cannot be questioned, but his decision may be impugned for error, either of law or of fact."

7. (1989) LPELR – 94 (SC).

8. Ibid., at p. 24, paras. C – E, per Honourable Justice Oputa, JSC.

9. Mike Ozekhome, 'Critiquing Judges and Judgments: The Dividing Line Introduction' (LawPavilion Blog, 21 March 2023) (https://lawpavilion.com/blog/critiquing-judges-and-judgments-the-dividing-line-introduction/) accessed 10 January 2025.

10. A judicial decision which is per incuriam is a decision wrongly decided, usually because the Judge was ill-informed about the applicable law. A judgment per incuriam is one which has been rendered inadvertently such as where the Judge has forgotten to take account of a previous decision to which the doctrine of stare decisis applies. It is a judgment which has no authority because it is rendered in contradiction to a previous judgment that should have been considered binding. See the following cases: Elabanjo v. Dawodu (2006) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1001) 76 (SC) at pp. 154 – 155, paras. G – C; and Opara v. S. P. D. C. N. Limited (2015) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1479) 307 (CA) at pp. 347 - 348, paras. F – A.

11. See the definition given by Honourable Justice Mohammed, JSC (later CJN), in the case of Maderibe v. FRN (2014) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1399) 68 (SC) at p. 91. See also, the case of N. P. G. Properties & Construction Works Limited v. Zenith Bank PLC (2023) LPELR – 60614 (CA) at p. 20, para. E, per Honourable Justice Ogbuinya, JCA (as he then was). On this note, a PND Order is a court order and it enjoys every privilege, dignity and sanctity accorded a court order.

12. The power to make a Post-No-Debit (PND) Order is vested in the Federal High Court by virtue of section 251(1)(d) and (3) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) and section 7(8) and (9) of the Money Laundering (Prevention and Prohibition) Act, 2022. This position was confirmed by the Court of Appeal in the case of First City Monument Bank v. Dr. Nelson Ogbemudia & Anor. (2022) LPELR - 58859 (CA) at pp. 16 – 21, paras. D – A, where Honourable Justice Onyekachi Aja Otisi, JCA, held thus: "A Post-No-Debit (PND) order on the account of a bank customer is a directive that restricts a bank customer from withdrawing funds from his bank account. Such an order is not one that a financial institution or even an investigatory body is empowered to grant itself. It is usually made by a Court of competent jurisdiction, being the Federal High Court. See Section 44(2) and Section 251(1)(d) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended); and Section 34(1) of the EFCC Act." (Emphasis added)

See also, the case of First Bank of Nigeria PLC v. Onuoha (2017) LPELR – 42135 (CA) where the Court of Appeal held inter alia that a Magistrate Court lacked jurisdiction to issue a Post-No-Debit (PND) Order on a customer's account, as banking matters fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal High Court.

13. See, section 168(1) of the Evidence Act, 2011 (as amended). See also, Mobil Producing Nigeria Unlimited v. Suffolk Petroleum Services Limited (2016) LPELR – 40054 (CA) at pp. 13 – 14, paras. C – A, per Honourable Justice Eko, JCA (as he then was).

14. See the case of Oba Amos Babatunde & Ors. v. Mr. Simon Olatunji & Anor. (2000) 2 NWLR (Pt. 646) 557 (SC) at pp. 568 – 569, paras. G – C; and Oba Aladegbemi v. Oba Fasanmade (1988) 3 NWLR (Pt. 81) 129 (SC).

15.See the following cases on this point: Williams v. Sanusi (1961) 2 SCNLR 129; Ojiako v. Ogueze (1962) 1 SCNLR 112; Adebayo v. Johnson (1969) 1 All NLR 176 at p. 194; Ajao v. Alao (1986) 5 NWLR (Pt. 45) 802 at p. 823; Yonwuren v. Modern Signs (1985) 1 NWLR (Pt. 2) 244; Odiase v. Agho (1972) 1 All NLR 170 at p. 176; Melifonwu v. Egbuji (1982) 9 S.C.145; Oba Aladegbemi v. Oba Fasanmade (supra); and Oba Amos Babatunde & Ors. v. Mr. Simon Olatunji & Anor. (supra) at p. 568, paras. A – G; and at p. 571, paras. F – G.

16. (1961) 3 All E. R. 1169 at p. 1172. Instructively, the Court of Appeal in Nigeria fell into the same error in the case of First Bank of Nigeria PLC v. Onuoha (2017) LPELR – 42135 (CA) when it held interalia that the Post-No-Debit (PND) Order was a nullity for lack of jurisdiction, and First Bank's compliance with it was unlawful because "the Magistrate Court's order was a clear case of judicial overreach.... The bank should not have complied with the order, as it was void ab initio."

17. See the views of Honourable Justice Akinbami, JCA, in the case of Alhaji Ali Ashiru & Ors. v. Alhaji Jamilu Isah (2022) LPELR – 58311 (CA) at pp. 35 – 36, paras. D – B. See also, the English case of Isaacs v. Robertson (1984) 3 All ER. 140, at p. 143, per Lord Diplock.

18. (1993) 8 NWLR (Pt. 312) 382 (SC).

19. Ibid., at pp. 434 – 435, paras. E – C, per Honourable Justice Ogundare, JSC. See also, Oba Amos Babatunde & Ors. v. Mr. Simon Olatunji & Anor. (2000) 2 NWLR (Pt. 646) 557 (SC) at pp. 570 – 571, paras. G – H, per Honourable Justice Ogwuegbu, JSC.

20. See the following cases on this point: Kamalu & Ors. v. Umunna & Ors. (1997) LPELR – 1657 (SC); Amida v. Oshobajo 7 SC 68 at pp. 76 – 77; Alims Nig. Limited v. UBA PLC (2007) All FWLR (Pt. 348) 971 (CA) at p. 981, paras. B – D; Fidelity Bank Plc v. The MT "Tabora" (2018) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1638) 135 (SC) at pp. 148 – 149; Noeker v. Executive Governor of Plateau State (2018) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1646) 481 at p. 492; FRN v. Duru (2019) LPELR – 47 at pp. 46 – 47, paras. A – D; and Mohammed & Ors. v. Estate of Late Chief Ibrahim Lumisi & Anor. (2023) LPELR – 60623 (CA) at pp. 16 – 17, paras. E – A.

21. See the following cases on the inherent jurisdiction of every court of law to set aside an ex parte order made by it: Secondi Bogban & 2 Ors. v. Motor Diwhre & 2 Ors. (2005) All FWLR (Pt. 281) 1724 (CA) at p. 1739; Aminu A. Umar v. Daniel Obi Onwudine & 3 Ors. (2002) LPELR – 11092 (CA); and Seven Up Bottling Company Limited v. Abiloa & Sons Limited (1989) 4 NWLR (Pt. 114) 229.

22. See, FRN v. Chief Mike Ozekhome (SAN) (2021) LPELR – 54666 (CA) at pp. 26 – 27, paras. A – D.

23. (1993) 8 NWLR (Pt. 312) 382 (SC).

24. Ibid., at pp. 471 – 472, paras. E – A, per Honourable Justice Bello, CJN. See also, the following cases: Nigerian Deposit Insurance Corporation & Anor. v. Savannah Bank of Nigeria PLC (2003) 1 NWLR (Pt. 801) 311 (CA) at p. 363, paras. C – D; and at pp. 363 – 364, paras. H – A, per Honourable Justice Musdapher, JCA (as he then was); and Dr. M. F. Peters & Anor. v. Samson Ashamu & Anor. (1995) 4 NWLR (Pt. 388) 206 (CA) at p. 218, paras. G – H; and at pp. 219 – 220, paras. D – A.

25. (1994) 3 NWLR (Pt. 330) 23 (CA).

26. Ibid., at p. 33, paras. G - H.

27. It is hornbook law that parties are bound by the prayers on their Motion Papers, and no court has jurisdiction to grant more than what has been claimed by parties before it. See the case of Olatunji v. Owena Bank of (Nig.) PLC (2002) 15 NWLR (Pt. 790) 272 (CA) at pp. 291 – 292, paras. H – A; and Dapianlong v. Dariye (2007) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1036) 239 (CA) at pp. 290 – 291, paras. D – A.

28. See the following cases on this point: Eyo v. Okpa (2010) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1191) 611 (CA) at p. 635, paras. C – E; L. S. D. P. C. v. Adeyemi-Bero (2005) 8 NWLR (Pt. 927) 220 (CA) at p. 353; and Federal Republic of Nigeria v. Chief Mike Ozekhome (SAN) (2021) LPELR – 54666 (CA) at pp. 16 – 17, paras. A – D, Honourable Justice Uwa, JCA (as he then was).

29. See the case of Dr. Emmanuel Urhobo & Anor. v. Major General B. I. Oteri & Anor. (1999) 2 NWLR (Pt. 589) 147 (CA) at p. 161, where Honourable Justice Mahmud Mohammed, JCA (as he then was), held: "However, the defendant over whose head such order is left hanging reserves the right and liberty to move the Court to discharge such ex-parte order or injunction even before the named date until which it was to last...."

Parenthetically, it is important to note that the Upper Area Court, Taraba State, like every other Court, retains the inherent jurisdiction to vary, set aside and/or discharge an ex parte PND Order that was made by it, especially where it was made without jurisdiction.

30. See, Nasiru v. Bindawa (2006) 1 NWLR (Pt. 961) 355 (CA) at p. 373, para. B.

31. See the following cases on this point: N. D. D. C. v. Precision Asso. Limited (2006) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1006) 527 (CA) at p. 555, paras. G – H; and Omoyinmi v. Olaniyan (2000) 4 NWLR (Pt. 651) 38 (CA) at p. 58, para. B.

32. See, Buraimoh v. Karimu (1999) 9 NWLR (Pt. 618) 310 (CA) at pp. 323 – 324, paras. H – B.

33. (2002) LPELR – 7068 (CA).

34. Ibid., at pp. 18 – 19, paras. C – B, per Honourable Justice Onnoghen, JCA (as he then was).

35. See, sections 1 and 2 of the Evidence Act, 2011 (as amended). See also, the case of Anyaebosi v. R. T. Briscoe (Nig.) Limited (1987) 3 NWLR (Pt. 59) 84 (SC) at p. 107, para. C, per Honourable Justice Karibi-Whyte, JSC.

36. See the following cases on this point: Wassah v. Kara (2015) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1449) 374 (SC) at p. 404, para. B; pp. 407 – 408, paras. H – A; and Agbi v. Ogbeh (2005) 8 NWLR (Pt. 926) 40 (CA) at p. 139, para. F; p. 140, para. C.

37. See, Imo State Independent Electoral Commission v. Oshieze Vincent Akujobi Ehirim (2013) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1340) 169 (SC) at p. 183, para. D.

38. See, Ikpa v. State (2018) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1609) 175 (SC) at p. 220, para. A.

39. See, Nigerian Ports PLC v. B. P. P. Limited (2006) 7 NWLR (Pt. 979) 323 (CA) at p. 379, paras. C – D.

40. See the case of Agbanelo v. UBN Limited (2000) LPELR – 234 (SC) at pp. 17 – 18, per Honourable Justice Ayoola, JSC.

41. The only exception to this position is where it is obvious on the face of the Order that it was not made by a court of law. A ready example can be seen in the case of Access Bank v. Agbasiere (2019) LPELR – 47310 (CA) at p. 15 where the Order was made by "Supreme Magistrate Court of Federal Capital Territory Dutse". In such a situation, the bank may carry out an "investigation" just to ascertain "if such court exists" before acting on the Order. See the detailed reasoning of Honourable Justice Okon Efreti Abang, JCA, at page 25 of the unreported Judgment in the case of Guaranty Trust Bank v. Ebisi Augustine Chijioke, Appeal No. CA/A/CV/155/2023 (hereinafter referred to as "Chijioke's Case"). The said decision was handed down by the Court of Appeal, Abuja Judicial Division on 20th December 2024.

This can be accessed via: Unini Chioma, 'Court of Appeal condemns GTBank For Inhuman Freezing of Customer's Account, Upholds N60M Damages, Adds N300K For Rights Violation' (The Nigeria Lawyer, 2 January 2025) (https://thenigerialawyer.com/court-of-appeal-condemns-gtbank-for-inhuman-freezing-of-customers-account-upholds-%E2%82%A660m-damages-adds-%E2%82%A6300k-for-rights-violation/) accessed 10 January 2025.

42. Ibid., Chijioke's Case. Coram: Abba Bello Mohammed, JCA; Peter Chudi Obiorah, JCA; and Okon Efreti Abang, JCA.

43. Ibid., at pp. 25 – 27 of the Unreported Judgment in Chijioke's Case, per Honourable Justice Okon Efreti Abang, JCA.

44. See the following recent cases on this point: Senator Anyanwu Samuel Nnaemeka & Anor. v. INEC (2024) LPELR – 63034 (SC) at p. 76, paras. B – D; Barr. Enyinna Onuegbu & Ors. v. Governor of Imo State & Ors. (2024) LPELR – 62620 (SC) at pp. 15 – 17, paras. E – C; Gusau v. Lawal & Ors. (2023) LPELR – 60152 (SC) at pp. 21 – 22, paras. C – B; Aondoakaa v. Obot & Anor. (2021) LPELR – 56605 (SC) at pp. 35 – 37, paras. C – A; Alhaji Suleiman Musa v. Jika Nigeria Limited & Anor. (2024) LPELR – 62779 (CA) at pp. 37 – 39, paras. A – E; Asabe Waziri v. Abeh Signature Limited (2024) LPELR – 62283 (CA) at p. 27, paras. D – E; Chinedu Odidika Nwankwo & Anor. v. Prof. Obi Obikeze & Anor. (2024) LPELR – 62741 (CA) at pp. 7 – 10, paras. C – D; Eng. Udengmobofa Eradiri v. INEC & Ors. (2024) LPELR – 62795 (CA) at p. 67, paras. C – E; Rogo Local Government Council & Ors. v. Hon. Nasiru Dalha Rogo (2023) LPELR – 59598 (CA) at pp. 27 – 28, paras. A – A; Hashim v. Aso Savings & Loans PLC (2022) LPELR – 57061 (CA); C. O. P. Ekiti State & Ors. v. Aregbesola & Ors. (2020) LPELR – 50177 (CA); DG DICN & Anor. v. Dinwabor & Ors. (2016) LPELR – 41316 (CA); Jukok Int. Ltd. v. Diamond Bank PLC (2016) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1507) 55; and Ilorin East Local Government v. Alasinrin & Anor. (2012) LPELR – 8400 (CA).

45. (2024) LPELR – 61938 (CA).

46. Ibid., at pp. 48 – 50, paras. F – C, per Honourable Justice Banjoko, JCA.

47. (2025) LPELR – 81028 (CA).

48. Ibid., at pp. 8 – 9, paras. B – F, per Honourable Justice Muhammad Ibrahim Sirajo, JCA. See also, Attorney-General of the Federation v. Anuebunwa (2022) LPELR – 57750 (SC); Ezechukwu & Anor. v. Onwuka (2016) LPELR – 26055 (SC); and Chairman EFCC v. Rosewood Investments Limited (2022) LPELR – 57792 (CA).

49. See the well-considered views of Honourable Justice Mainoma, JCA, in the case of Chinedu Odidika Nwankwo & Anor. v. Prof. Obi Obikeze & Anor. (2024) LPELR – 62741 (CA) at p. 10, paras. C – D.

50. See the case of Ezechukwu & Anor. v. I. O. C. Onwuka (2016) LPELR – 26055 (SC); and Mr. Benson Okeke Ezeofor & Ors. v. Pastor Fidelis Egware (2024) LPELR – 62396 (CA) at p. 18, para. C.

51. See the evergreen views of Honourable Justice Nnamani, JSC, in the case of Okafor v. Idigo (1984) 1 SCNLR 481 at p. 513.

52. Op. cit., at p. 25 of the unreported Judgement in Chijioke's Case (n42), per Honourable Justice Okon Efreti Abang, JCA.

53. Ibid.

54. Ibid., at p. 29 of the unreported Judgment in Chijioke's Case (n42), per Honourable Justice Okon Efreti Abang, JCA.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.