GARNISHEE – ROLE OF A GARNISHEE IN A GARNISHEE PROCEEDINGS  

 

Yinka Bright
Joined: 8 months ago
Posts: 114
26/08/2019 10:20 am  

“This court held on the Role of a garnishee in a garnishee proceeding in the case of Access Bank v Adewusi (Supra) thus;

the materials before the lower Court, the Appellant for some inexplicable reasons carefully evaded filing materials disclosing valid and substantial reasons why the Order Nisi must not be made absolute, the Appellant failed to furnish comprehensive statement of account as required by the order of the lower Court. The Appellant has a duty to ensure that the orders of the lower Court are carried out effectively and completely to conclusion. It does not fall within the duties of the Appellant Bank to proceed to substitute account numbers and present inconclusive statements of account to the Court. This brings me to the statement made by MACKINNON L.J, in Hirschorn vs. Evans (1939) 2 KB 801, where he said as follows on the duties of a Bank served with Garnishee order “If upon receiving that summons (For 15 Pounds and 7 shillings), the Bank had any account in their books in the name of Lionel Evans, the Judgment debtor, it would have been their duty not to allow Lionel Evans, to draw cheques upon that account so as to reduce the credit balance below the sum of 15 Pounds and 7 shillings.” The Garnishee Bank must supply the details of the accounts listed and nothing else. I carefully examined the exhibits A1 and A2, both exhibits relate to different account and cannot in my humble understanding take the place of the statement of account contemplated by the order of the lower Court, a garnishee Bank has obligation to carry out the orders of the Court. InZenith Bank Plc vs. Kano & Ors (2016) LPELR-40335 (CA) Pg.6-8, this Court, Per SANKEY, JCA explained the duty placed on a Garnishee Bank in the following words: “… the onus placed on a Garnishee would only be discharged where it successfully establishes that the account referred to in the Decree Nisi does not exist in its system or if it exists it is heavily in debt and not in credit or that the number stated on the order nisi had since changed to another version. See: Fidelity Bank Plc V Okwuowulu (2012) LPELR-8492 (CA); Citizens International Bank V SCOA (Nig.) Ltd (2006) 18 NWLR (Pt 1011) 334.” See also Total Upstream Nigeria Ltd vs. A.I.C Ltd & ORS (2015) LPELR-25388 (CA) Pg. 45, Zenith Bank Plc vs. Omenaka & Anor (2016) LPELR-40327 (CA) pp. 24-26 and U.B.N. Plc vs. Boney Marcus Ind. Ltd (2005) 13 NWLR (pt.943) 654, (2005) LPELR-3394 (SC) Pg. 14-15. The Appellant made reference to Account Numbers 0100308346 and 0400009879 without stating or establishing the nexus between the accounts and the accounts against which the Order Nisi was made and if there was at anytime a change to Account Numbers 0100308346 and 0400009879. It is therefore clear that the Appellant failed to show any Cause at all in respect of the Account Numbers: O008050000000309 and 0008001000013260. The Court is not expected to embark on speculations or logical deductions. Furthermore, the Appellant’s Affidavit in one breadth posited that the Judgment Debtors do not have any account with the Garnishee Bank or any sum at all. On the other hand, it disclosed that the two accounts operated by the Judgment Debtors had since been closed since year 2009 with debit value in the judgment debtors accounts. It will appear that the depositions contained in the Affidavit to show cause are conflicting and self-contradictory. This Court cannot be expected to pick and choose which depositions to accord relevance to, parties confronting the Courts with facts must do so with certainty and some good measure of exactness, parties must not expect the Courts to embark on filtration process to filter the facts. See: Dale Power Systems Plc Vs. Witt & Busch Limited & Anor (2007) LPELR – 4011 (CA). More so, in the counter – affidavit in opposition to the Appellant’s affidavit to show cause, the Respondents deposed to the fact that the accounts of the Judgment Debtor were subject to a freezing order by the Investment and Securities Tribunal, albeit interim, as argued by the Appellant on 4th December, 2007. The Appellant failed to give any evidence to the contrary or challenge evidence or ipso facto lead ” per ABUBAKAR, J.C.A (PP. 28-32, PARAS. D-A)” any credible evidence to show that the interim order had been discharged. By PER A.O.OBASEKI-ADEJUMO, J.C.A in the case of

ZENITH BANK PLC .V. CHIEF SUNDAY EDEH &ANOR https://lawyersarena.com/community/banking-insurance/


Quote
Share:
Views All Time
Views All Time
250439
Views Today
Views Today
327