The Court of Appeal, Abuja, on Wednesday overturned the Federal High Court’s decision which attached a purported N100.1 million judgment debt against the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) in a dispute involving the Imo State Government. Justice Okon Abang, who read the unanimous judgment, held that the trial court “acted on speculation” rather than credible and verifiable evidence in making a garnishee order absolute (final) against the CBN. The Court reaffirmed that the apex bank neither maintained an account for the Imo State Government nor owed the state any attachable debt capable of sustaining garnishee proceedings. The appeal arose from the judgment of the Federal High Court, Abuja, delivered on May 19, 2016, in garnishee proceedings instituted by Andrew Okoroji’s lawyer, K.C. Nwufor, SAN, to enforce a N100,178,210 judgment earlier obtained against the Imo State Government.
The trial court had held that the state’s anticipated allocation from the Federation Account Allocation Committee (FAAC), domiciled with the CBN, constituted attachable funds. But the CBN’s legal team, Kokori & Bello, challenged that decision on appeal. What the Court of Appeal is saying
Delivering the lead judgment, Justice Abang found Okoroji’s evidence to be fundamentally deficient. He held that Andrew Okoroji, who deposed to the counter-affidavit, neither claimed membership of FAAC nor disclosed the source of the FAAC information contained in his affidavit. “All depositions in his counter-affidavit are documentary hearsay, which are not credible and reliable.
I so hold.”
The Court held that the trial judge acted with undue haste by making the garnishee order absolute (final) without first resolving the factual disputes through trial. Justice Abang stressed that garnishee proceedings must rest on credible, cogent, and verifiable evidence, not 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.”
More Read
Justice Abang held that the lower court proceeded on “speculation” by treating anticipated FAAC allocations as attachable debts despite the absence of any legal evidence establishing indebtedness on the part of the CBN. He concluded that the trial court acted speculatively and was sentimental and emotional against the apex bank. “There was no basis in fact and in law for the order to be made absolute.”
Justice Abang concluded that the order absolute against the CBN was made based on the imagination of the trial court, adding that “the trial court cannot make an order in vain.”
The Court unanimously allowed the appeal, set aside the garnishee order, and awarded ₦1 million in costs against the judgment creditor. Backstory
Okoroji’s legal team had argued that, following the failure of the Imo State Government to settle the debt owed to him, he instituted a suit in 2012, securing a favourable judgment in the sum of N100,178,210 against the state. He accused the Imo State Government of failing to settle the said judgment sum, leading to his filing garnishee proceedings to enforce payment of the judgment sum.
The lower court was said to have held that the monthly allocation shared among the three tiers of government constituted indebtedness and could be attached. But the CBN’s counsel argued that, contrary to the nature of money that can be attached by a Garnishee Order Nisi (temporary attachment) as a debt, the monthly allocation of states from the Federation Account is not a fixed, specific, or determinable sum of money payable to the state by the appellant.
He argued that the apex bank is also not under any obligation to disburse any funds to the state government and that the disbursement of the monthly allocation only crystallizes after the allocation is made by the Federation Account Allocation Committee. He stated that, at the time the trial court made the Garnishee Order Nisi on September 25, 2014, which was subsequently made absolute (final) on May 19, 2016, no allocation was due or accruing from the CBN to the state that was capable of attachment by a Garnishee Order Nisi. What this means
By the Court of Appeal judgment, anticipated FAAC allocations cannot constitute debts attachable in garnishee proceedings.
The Court of Appeal reaffirmed the position that only an existing, ascertainable, and legally enforceable debt can be attached. For litigants and parties, the judgment represents a reaffirmation of settled principles governing garnishee proceedings and is expected to become an important appellate authority on the evidential threshold required before financial institutions can lawfully be subjected to attachment orders.
What you should know
The development adds to the list of garnishee proceedings ruled upon by the courts. Nairametrics reports that a garnishee proceeding is an aspect of the law whereby a judgment creditor (who has won a monetary judgment) seeks to recover the judgment debt by attaching money belonging to the judgment debtor that is held by a bank, thereby involving the bank in the case for the purpose of showing cause, if necessary. In April 2026, the Federal High Court, Abuja, discharged First Bank of Nigeria Limited from a $8,488,752.88 garnishee proceedings dispute between NIMEX Petrochemicals Ltd and another party against Conoil Plc. The trial court further reiterated that garnishee proceedings are strictly confined to monies in the custody of a garnishee that are in credit in favour of the judgment debtor and do not extend to debit balances or facilities that merely reflect an indebtedness to the bank.
