Key Lessons On Enforcing Monetary Judgments In Nigeria: An Analysis Of The Supreme Court's Judgment In C.B.N. v Ochife (2025) 12 NWLR (Pt. 2000) 1

INTRODUCTION
When enforcing monetary claims in Nigeria, obtaining a favourable judgment is only one part of the process, as the judgment must still be enforced if the debtor refuses to pay the judgment sum. Enforcing a monetary judgment means that the person taking benefit from the monetary judgment ("the judgment creditor") has to employ any of the judgment enforcement processes available under the Sheriff and Civil Processes Act against the person ordered to pay the judgment sum ("the judgment debtor"). One of the most potent means of enforcing monetary judgments is the garnishee proceedings.

A garnishee proceeding is a process for enforcing a money judgment by seizing or attaching debts due and accruing to the judgment debtor, which form part of his property in the hands of a third party for attachment. See: Central Bank of Nigeria v. Okeb Nigeria Limited (2014) LPELR 23162 (CA).

Although the Supreme Court of Nigeria's recent decision in the case of C.B.N. v Ochife (2025) 12 NWLR (Pt. 2000) 1pertains to the enforcement of a monetary judgment against a public officer or public entity, it contains numerous lessons for parties seeking to enforce monetary judgments against individuals or corporate entities. This article, therefore, seeks to highlight the key lessons for parties deducible from the Supreme Court's decision in C.B.N. v Ochife.

FACTS OF C.B.N. v OCHIFE

Mr. Ochife, the 1^st Respondent, obtained a monetary judgment for N50,000,000.00 (Fifty million naira) in 2018 against the 2^nd to 4^th Respondents: the Inspector General of Police, the Commissioner of Police, FCT; and the O/C Intelligence Response Team, Special Anti-Robbery Squad (SARS), Nigerian Police Force.

Since the 2^nd to 4^th Respondents failed to pay the judgment sum of N50,000,000.00 (Fifty million naira), Mr. Ochife commenced garnishee proceedings against the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) and the 2^nd to 4^th Respondents before the Federal High Court. Mr. Ochife argued that the Federal Government's Treasury Single Account policy placed the judgment debtors' funds (being public officers) under the control of the CBN. Therefore, Mr Ochife further argued that the CBN should be compelled to pay him the judgment sum of N50,000,000.00 (Fifty million naira).

The Court issued a garnishee order nisi, directing the CBN to show cause why the Court should not issue a garnishee order absolute, compelling it to pay the judgment sum. The CBN filed an affidavit to show cause and argued that it did not hold funds belonging to the judgment debtors because the judgment debtors were not Ministries, Departments or Agencies (MDAs); rather, they were public officers who did not maintain accounts or funds with the CBN. The CBN also argued, amongst other things, that it was a public officer, and Mr Ochife could not enforce a judgment against the CBN because he did not obtain the consent of the Attorney General of the Federation to execute a garnishee order against the CBN as stipulated by Section 84 of the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act.

The Federal High Court granted the Garnishee Order Absolute and disregarded the CBN's affidavit as filed out of time. CBN appealed against the Federal High Court's order to the Court of Appeal on the grounds that the Federal High Court was wrong to have discountenanced its affidavit to show cause and that the Federal High Court lacked the jurisdiction to entertain the garnishee proceedings since Mr Ochife did not seek the Attorney General's consent, as required under section 84 of the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act, before commencing the garnishee proceedings.

Although the Court of Appeal held that the Federal High Court was wrong to have disregarded the CBN's affidavit to show cause on the ground that it was filed out of time, it went ahead to dismiss the appeal because it found that the CBN's affidavit to show cause was "patently mischievous and an affront to the administration of justice" for the CBN to have maintained that it did not hold any accounts in the names of the 2^nd to 4^th Respondents. Instructively, the Court of Appeal relied on section 124 of the Evidence Act to take judicial notice of the fact that under the Federal Government Single Treasury Account (TSA) Policy, all the Government Ministries and MDAs' accounts were now with the CBN. Therefore, since the 2^nd to 4^th Defendants were public officers, the Court of Appeal found the CBN's position unacceptable. The CBN was still dissatisfied with the Court of Appeal's judgment and filed an appeal with the Supreme Court.

SUMMARY OF THE SUPREME COURT'S DECISION

The Supreme Court allowed the CBN's appeal and set aside the concurrent decisions of the Federal High Court and the Court of Appeal on the ground that their judgments were perverse. The Supreme Court held that it was wrong for the Court of Appeal to have upheld the Garnishee Order Absolute because Mr Ochife had failed to provide evidence of the fact that the 2^nd to 4^th Respondents maintained accounts with the CBN. In point of fact, the Supreme Court held that the 2^nd and 4^th Respondents could not have maintained accounts with the CBN, as they were not Government Ministries and MDAs, but were clearly the heads of agencies, and there is a clear distinction between a position within an agency and the agency itself. In summary, the Supreme Court held that before a garnishee order absolute can be made against a garnishee, a judgment creditor has the duty to put forward evidence that the garnishee holds funds belonging to the judgment debtor. Honourable Abiru, JSC at Page 91 Para B-E of the judgment held as follows:

"What is obvious is that had the lower court properly evaluated the depositions of the first respondent on the garnishee proceedings, it would have found that they also contained mere assertions, without specifics. The lower court would have also found that the assertion of the first respondent that the judgment debtors have accounts with the appellant under the Treasury Single Accounts (TSA) policy of the Federal Government of Nigeria was incorrect. The Treasury Single Accounts (TSA) policy of the Federal Government of Nigeria was made in respect of Ministries, Departments and Agencies (MDAs) of the Federal Government; this fact was accepted by the lower Court and all the Counsel to the parties. The judgment debtors are the Inspector General of Police, The Commissioner of Police FCT and the Officer in Charge, Intelligence Response Team, Special Anti-Robbery Squad of the Nigeria Police Force. It is obvious, and the lower Court would have found, that the three judgment debtors are not Ministries, Departments or Agencies of the Federal Government of Nigeria and cannot be referred to as MDAs to qualify as persons that the appellant would maintain accounts for in their names under the Treasury Single Accounts (TSA) policy of the Federal Government of Nigeria."

Regarding the CBN's argument on lack of jurisdiction based on the failure of Mr Ochife to seek the Attorney General's consent before filing the application for garnishee, the Supreme Court held that the CBN had waived its right to raise the issue of lack of jurisdiction because it did not raise the issue promptly at the Federal High Court when it filed its affidavit to show cause in response to the garnishee application. The Supreme Court held that the issue of lack of jurisdiction to hear the garnishee application was a matter of procedural jurisdiction and that once a matter of procedural jurisdiction was raised, the party raising it must do so promptly before contesting the matter on the merits. Honourable Abiru, JSC at Page 80 Para A-B of the judgment held as follows:

"In the present case, the appellant did not raise that issue of the failure of the first respondent to obtain the fiat and/or consent of the Attorney General of the Federation before commencing the garnishee proceedings either in its affidavit to show cause or in any other process in the trial court. The appellant's affidavit to show cause met the case of the first respondent on the garnishee proceedings on the merits. The appellant had no right to raise the issue on appeal before the lower court for the first time."

KEY TAKEAWAYS FROM THE SUPREME COURT'S JUDGMENT

The following are the key takeaways deducible from the Supreme Court's judgment:

1. Claimants should be very diligent and thorough when identifying and naming the parties to be sued as the Defendants. They must ensure that the Defendants are juristic persons that maintain bank accounts or have assets in their names.
2. Claimants should pay more attention to suing organisations or Ministries, Departments and Agencies (MDAs) rather than suing their heads.
3. Any Claimant who plans to enforce a monetary judgment against a Public Officer must ensure that they seek the Attorney General's consent, as required under section 84 of the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act, before commencing the garnishee proceedings.
4. Claimants should ensure that they conduct their due diligence in providing the details of the bank accounts maintained by the Judgment Debtor before filing their application for garnishee proceedings, as this would make it easier for the Court to determine the garnishee application in their favour.
5. The Courts might no longer be favourably disposed to an application for garnishee proceedings that merely state that the Judgment Debtor maintains accounts with all the commercial banks in Nigeria, without providing the details of those accounts.
6. There is no time limit for a garnishee to file its affidavit to show cause, as what matters most is for the garnishee to file its affidavit to show cause before the hearing or return date.
7. Garnishees that intend to raise any procedural jurisdictional issue regarding the competence of the garnishee application should do so promptly before filing their affidavit to show cause or in their affidavit to show cause, as they will be deemed to have waived their right to raise the jurisdictional objection if they do so after filing their affidavit to show cause.

CONCLUSION

This decision marks a significant shift in how Nigerian courts approach garnishee proceedings, particularly in cases involving public funds. The Supreme Court's emphasis on strict compliance with evidentiary requirements and procedural formalities signals that judgment creditors can no longer rely on general assertions or assumptions about where judgment debtors maintain their funds.

Judgment creditors and their counsel would be well-advised to treat this decision as a call to higher standards of practice in enforcement proceedings.

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.