Garnishee Proceedings (100)
HELD:
"In summary, the appellant's complaint in this issue borders on the Order Nisi which was served on it by the 1st and 2nd Respondents.
HELD:
"The appellant in brief contends that the Garnishee Order Form 26 which was served on the appellant was not endorsed with the mandatory notice in Section 97 of the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act (SCPA for short).
HELD:
"The role of a Garnishee in any Garnishee Proceeding is delimited.
HELD:
"In answer to the question herein raised, a recourse to the deposition of 3rd and 4th respondents at paragraph 13 of the affidavit as shown at page 76 of the Record would be helpful and therein they admitted against interest as follows:
HELD:
"As rightly submitted by the learned counsel representing the 1st and 2nd respondents, by this issue, the appellant seeks to move this Court to believe that Section 83 of the SCPA was not complied with by the 1st and 2nd respondents in commencing this case.
HELD:
"It is instructive to state and bear in mind that Suit No. FHC/UM/M/85/72011 giving rise to Appeal No. CA/OW/1999/2012 is a Garnishee Proceeding which comes under Judgment (Enforcement) Rules LFN which under Order II General Rule 16 states:
HELD:
"The law is long settled that a Garnishee proceeding is strictly between the judgment creditor and the Garnishee who is indebted to the judgment debtor.
HELD:
"The appellant's contention herein centres on the provision of Section 84(1) of the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act which counsel submits was not complied with in that the consent of the Attorney-General of the Federation was not first sought and obtained before the order Nisi was made.
HELD:
"Only one issue stands out starkly for consideration here.