Garnishee Proceedings (100)
HELD:
"The only duty of a garnishee in garnishee proceedings is to satisfy the Court why the funds in its possession belonging to the judgment debtor should not be garnished to pay the judgment debt. It is not the duty of a garnishee to play the role of advocate for the judgment debtor nor to protect the debtor's money in its possession. See:Oceanic Bank Plc v. Michael Olusegun Oladepo & Anor. (2012) LPELR - 19670 (C/A)." See GTB v. INNOSON NIGERIA LTD (2017) LPELR-42368(SC)Per KEKERE-EKUN, J.S.C. (P. 25, Paras. B-D)
HELD:
"It is not for a garnishee to fight the cause of a judgment debtor who either accepts the judgment against him and does nothing about it, or who may be indolent to fight his cause.
HELD:
"Let me preface this discourse with a statement on what in law, garnishee proceeding is. It is a process of enforcing a money judgment by the seizure or attachment of the debts due or accruing to the judgment debtor which form part of his property available in execution.
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:
"The point raised by the appellant is that the Suit ought not to have been commenced in Abia State and so the garnishee must be within the State where the Court to which the application is made exercises jurisdiction and the debt owed by the garnishee must be recoverable within the jurisdiction of the Court and definition of Court under the provision of Section 2 of SCPA includes the Federal High Court of Nigeria and that in his instance the Court of trial ought to be that in Abuja or the Federal Capital Territory Court. Section 83 SCPA referred to.
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: