The Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) has secured a major legal victory after the Court of Appeal, Abuja Division, set aside a Federal High Court order attaching N100.18 million in a garnishee proceeding arising from a judgment debt involving the Imo State Government.

In a unanimous judgment delivered by Justice Okon Abang, the appellate court held that the trial court acted on speculation rather than credible and verifiable evidence in making the garnishee order absolute against the apex bank.

The court ruled that the CBN neither maintained an account on behalf of the Imo State Government nor owed the state any attachable debt capable of sustaining garnishee proceedings.

The appeal stemmed from a May 19, 2016 judgment of the Federal High Court in Abuja, which granted an application by Andrew Okoroji to enforce a judgment debt of N100,178,210 against the Imo State Government. The lower court had held that the state’s anticipated Federation Account Allocation Committee (FAAC) allocation, domiciled with the CBN, constituted attachable funds.

However, Justice Abang found that the evidence relied upon by the judgment creditor failed to establish that the CBN was indebted to the Imo State Government.

He held that Okoroji, who deposed to the counter-affidavit, neither claimed to be a member of the Federation Account Allocation Committee nor disclosed the source of the information contained in his affidavit.

“All depositions in his counter-affidavit are documentary hearsay, which are not credible and reliable. I so hold.”

The appellate court further held that the trial judge acted prematurely by making the garnishee order absolute without first resolving the disputed facts through a proper hearing.

Justice Abang emphasised that garnishee proceedings must be founded on credible, cogent and verifiable evidence rather than assumptions or conjecture.

“The first respondent did not prove by verifiable evidence that the CBN was indebted to the Imo State Government to warrant the order nisi being made in the first place to attach a non-existent debt in the hands of the CBN.”

The court also rejected the contention that anticipated FAAC allocations constitute attachable debts, reaffirming the settled legal principle that only an existing, ascertainable and legally enforceable debt can be subjected to garnishee proceedings.

Justice Abang held that there was “no basis in fact and in law” for the garnishee order to have been made absolute, describing the trial court’s decision as speculative.

“The order absolute was made on the imagination of the trial court. A trial court cannot make an order in vain,” he said.

The Court of Appeal consequently allowed the appeal, set aside the garnishee order and awarded N1 million in costs against the judgment creditor.

Legal observers say the judgment reinforces established principles governing garnishee proceedings and is expected to serve as an important appellate authority on the evidential threshold required before financial institutions can lawfully be subjected to attachment orders.

Court Awards Lawyer N15m for Rights Violation

In a separate judgment delivered the same day, Justice Abang upheld the appeal filed by Barrister Igwe Onyesom Ugochukwu in a fundamental rights enforcement case against KYC Interproject Ltd.

The appellant had alleged that he was unlawfully arrested by persons acting on behalf of the company while at his building site in Lugbe, Abuja.

The Court of Appeal held that the respondents, not being law enforcement agencies, lacked the legal authority to arrest or detain him and awarded N15 million in damages for the violation of his constitutional rights to dignity, personal liberty, fair hearing and freedom of movement.

The judgment also clarified the law on affidavit evidence and electronic exhibits after the trial court dismissed the application on the ground that the applicant failed to play a video compact disc attached to his supporting affidavit.

The appellate court held that the lower court’s approach was erroneous, providing further guidance on the admissibility and evaluation of electronic evidence in fundamental rights proceedings.