 |
| Lydia Ehisuoria Ohonsi, LL.B., BL |
The enforcement of monetary judgments against the Nigerian Federal Government and its agencies has long been bedevilled by the consent requirement embedded in Section 84 of the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act, Cap. S6, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004 (SCPA). At the heart of this legal struggle is the question of whether the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) qualifies as a ‘public officer’ under that provision, which would necessitate obtaining prior consent from the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF) before garnishee proceedings can validly issue.
For decades, the Nigerian judicial system has been caught in a "jurisprudential labyrinth," with courts at all levels issuing conflicting pronouncements. This inconsistency has often frustrated legitimate judgment creditors while enabling executive interference with judicial enforcement. While the Supreme Court's decision in CBN v. Interstella Communications Ltd (2019) appeared to settle the matter, subsequent Court of Appeal decisions reignited the controversy.
The definitive resolution finally arrived on 16 January 2026, when the Supreme Court delivered its judgment in Central Bank of Nigeria v. Lidan Engineering Limited & 6 Ors (SC/CV/82/2021). In a unanimous decision, the apex court authoritatively resolved the perennial dispute, reaffirmed the Interstella doctrine, and condemned the use of technical objections as a tool to frustrate legitimate judgment enforcement.
The Enforcement Deficit
In principle, the enforcement of a money judgment represents the "crowning moment" of civil litigation, translating a judicial pronouncement into tangible relief. However, in Nigeria, the gap between obtaining a judgment and receiving payment—particularly against government agencies—has historically been so wide that many court awards have been rendered illusory.
Legal experts point to Section 84 of the SCPA as the primary contributor to this "enforcement deficit". The provision has been interpreted by many courts to require AGF or state consent before garnishee proceedings can be issued against funds held by a ‘public officer’. With the implementation of the Treasury Single Account (TSA) policy, the CBN now holds virtually all funds belonging to federal government agencies in consolidated accounts, making its status as a ‘public officer’ a central point of legal contention.
An affirmative classification of the CBN as a ‘public officer’ meant that judgment creditors had to seek consent from the very government they were seeking to collect from—a requirement that frequently proved illusory due to governmental reluctance to facilitate enforcement against itself.
A Watershed Moment
The Lidan Engineering decision is now regarded as a watershed in Nigerian law. By upholding the Interstella principle, the Supreme Court has cleared the path for judgment creditors, asserting that the CBN cannot hide behind the "public officer" shield to block the attachment of government funds.
Legal analysts suggest that this ruling will have significant implications for judgment enforcement practice in Nigeria. Beyond the immediate judicial resolution, there are ongoing calls to interrogate the constitutional dimensions of Section 84 of the SCPA and to propose legislative reforms that would prevent future executive interference in the judicial process.
To read the full 19-page publication by Lydia Ehisuoria Ohonsi, LL.B., BL, which provides a detailed analysis of the statutory framework, the historical rationale for AG consent, and the full implications of the Lidan Engineering decision, please click the link below:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1M7iF3sZ4vQnPL3lKI0r3xSVHtLYDvc57/view?usp=sharing
0 Comments