6 June 2026
30 mins read
ABSTRACT
This article examines garnishee proceedings as a means of enforcing monetary judgments under Nigerian law. It employs a doctrinal and non-doctrinal research methodology through the usage of statutes, judicial Authorities, online Journals and articles to arrive at its conclusion. The article examines the doctrines of functus officio and loss of jurisdiction upon the entry of an appeal, and the continued authority of trial courts to entertain garnishee proceedings. Relying on the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act, the Judgment (Enforcement) Rules, the Court of Appeal Rules, and relevant judicial decisions, the article shows that garnishee proceedings are sui generis and procedurally independent of the substantive action that resulted in judgment. It further analyses the structure of garnishee proceedings, as well as the limited and conditional role of the judgment debtor. The article concludes that garnishee proceedings constitute a distinct enforcement jurisdiction which survives the delivery of judgment and the pendency of an appeal, unless expressly stayed, and that their autonomy is essential to the effective enforcement of judgments within Nigerian civil procedure. The article suggests possible and practical recommendations aimed at effective justice delivery while emphasising the need for legal practitioners to acquaint themselves with the intricacies of garnishee proceedings to forestall delay tactics.
1. 0 INTRODUCTION
In the architecture of Nigerian civil procedure, the principle that a trial court loses jurisdiction over a matter once judgment is delivered or an appeal is entered is firmly entrenched. Upon delivering judgment, a court becomes functus officio1; it has discharged its duty and can no longer reopen, revisit, or alter the substance of the adjudicated matter. Similarly, upon the entry of an appeal, jurisdiction over the subject matter transitions to the appellate court, divesting the lower court of further competence over the same.
Yet, within this rigid jurisdictional framework, Garnishee proceedings present a nuanced exception. Garnishee proceedings, although stemming from a court’s judgment, constitute an independent, sui generis enforcement mechanism distinct from the original suit.2 The peculiar procedural and jurisdictional character of Garnishee proceedings allows the trial court to entertain enforcement steps even after it has become functus officio or after a valid appeal has been entered. This dual survivability raises significant questions about the legal foundations and limits of judicial power in post-judgment contexts.
This article seeks to interrogate and clarify the position of Nigerian legis on this procedural paradox. It examines the extent to which the trial court retains jurisdiction to entertain garnishee proceedings after it would ordinarily be deemed functus officio or divested by the entry of an appeal. By carefully analyzing relevant statutory provisions, rules of court, judicial authorities, and existing academic research, the article demonstrates that garnishee proceedings are not merely extensions of the original action but independent legal proceedings aimed solely at the enforcement of existing rights.
The article adopts a doctrinal research methodology, relying extensively on statutes such as the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act, the Judgment (Enforcement) Rules, and the Court of Appeal Rules, alongside critical Nigerian Supreme Court and Court of Appeal decisions. It also engages with existing academic research and scholarly commentary on jurisdictional divestment, enforcement mechanisms, and the autonomy of garnishee proceedings within Nigerian procedural law. Through this analysis, it is contended that the procedural independence of garnishee proceedings justifies the continued jurisdiction of the trial court despite the general doctrines of functus officio and appeal divestment.
Ultimately, the article argues for a clear recognition of the autonomy of garnishee proceedings within Nigerian procedural law, advocating for a jurisprudence that distinguishes between the adjudicative functions of a trial court and its enforcement powers post-judgment.3
2.0 FUNCTUS OFFICIO: LOSS OF JURISDICTION UPON DELIVERY OF JUDGMENT
The principle that a trial court becomes functus officio after delivering its judgment is fundamental to the finality of judicial proceedings. Once judgment is pronounced, the court ceases to have authority over the substantive issues it has adjudicated. This doctrine protects the stability of legal determinations and serves the broader goals of judicial economy and certainty in the administration of justice.4
To this effect, the Supreme Court emphasized that after judgment, a court cannot revisit, modify, or alter its decision, save for clerical mistakes or accidental omissions under the “slip rule.”5 This preserves the authority and dignity of judicial decisions.
However, functus officio does not strip the trial court of all competence. While it cannot reconsider the merits of the adjudicated matter, it retains ancillary jurisdiction to oversee the enforcement of its orders. Thus, it can supervise consequential applications and processes intended to give effect to its final judgment.
The enforcement jurisdiction includes procedures like garnishee proceedings, writs of execution, and other enforcement mechanisms that ensure compliance with the court’s final orders.
2.1 Divestment of Jurisdiction Upon Entry of Appeal.
In addition to functus officio upon judgment delivery, the entry of an appeal also restricts a trial court’s authority. By provisions of Court of Appeal Rules, once an appeal is entered, the lower court loses jurisdiction over the matters on appeal.6 From that point, all applications touching the appeal must be directed to the appellate court.
This transfer of authority is designed to preserve hierarchical judicial discipline. It prevents parallel jurisdictional assertions that could otherwise compromise the integrity of appellate review.
As held in Orji v. Zaria Industries Ltd,7 upon proper entry of an appeal, the trial court is precluded from entertaining further applications that touch upon the issues appealed against. The case reinforces that the existence of an appeal shifts full supervisory control to the appellate court.
Nonetheless, the loss of jurisdiction upon entry of an appeal mirrors the principle underlying functus officio: the trial court is no longer competent to address the substantive issues decided but retains limited powers for matters collateral or incidental to enforcement.
2.2 Exception Under Order 4 Rule 11(2) Court of Appeal Rules
Despite the general rule of divestment, Order 4 Rule 11(2) of the Court of Appeal Rules recognizes a critical exception. It provides that proceedings “not impacted by or to which the appeal entered in the Court of Appeal does not relate” may continue before the lower court.
This means that if a proceeding is independent of the appeal’s subject matter, the trial court retains jurisdiction over it.8 Garnishee proceedings, aimed purely at enforcement and not at revisiting the merits of the substantive dispute, fall within this exception.
Thus, where a judgment creditor initiates garnishee proceedings to realize a judgment debt, such enforcement actions are not automatically stayed by the pendency of an appeal. Only a formal order of stay can halt such enforcement9.
The survival of garnishee proceedings despite an appeal entry aligns with both logic and judicial policy favoring the enforcement of rights recognized by courts.
In conclusion, both the functus officio principle and the divestment of jurisdiction upon entry of appeal reinforce that while a trial court cannot relitigate substantive matters, it retains critical enforcement powers including the jurisdiction to entertain garnishee proceedings absent an express stay.
3. 0 NATURE, STRUCTURE, AND AUTONOMY OF GARNISHEE PROCEEDINGS
3.1 Conceptual Understanding Of Garnishee Proceedings
Garnishee proceedings are specialized mechanisms designed to enforce money judgments by enabling the judgment creditor to attach debts owed to the judgment debtor by third parties.10 Eko JSC in GTB v. Innoson Nigeria Ltd11 put it more succinctly, “It is a process of enforcing a money judgment by seizure or attachment of the debts due or accruing to the judgment debtor which forms part of his property available for execution.” The essential nature of a garnishee proceeding is enforcement; it does not reopen issues already decided in the substantive suit.12 Instead, it facilitates realization of the fruits of litigation.
The process is typically initiated by an ex parte application for an order nisi, wherein the court orders the garnishee (such as a bank or other debtor of the judgment debtor) to show cause why it should not pay the judgment sum directly to the judgment creditor.
The Sheriffs and Civil Process Act, particularly Sections 83 to 92, and the Judgment (Enforcement) Rules, primarily regulate garnishee proceedings. These laws underscore the distinct character of garnishee actions by providing a self-contained framework for their administration.13
3.2 PROCEDURAL STRUCTURE OF GARNISHEE PROCEEDINGS
Garnishee proceedings unfold in two main stages:
First Stage: Ex Parte Application and Order Nisi
The judgment creditor files an ex parte application supported by an affidavit identifying the garnishee who is believed to be holding funds for or indebted to the judgment debtor. Illustratively, assuming Mr. A has obtained judgment from the Court against Mr. B in the sum of ten Million Naira and Mr. B is yet to pay the judgment dept over to Mr. A. meanwhile Mr. A has discovered that Mr. B has an account with Guaranteed Trust Bank Plc, if he discovered that the money in the account can satisfy his debt, Mr. A can bring an application for garnishee proceedings to obtain garnishee order that Guaranteed Trust Bank Plc (Garnishee) should pay the sum of ten million naira from Mr. B’s account over to Mr. A’s (The Garnishor) in order to satisfy the judgment debt due from Mr. B (The Judgment Debtor) to Mr. A (The Garnishor). If satisfied, the court issues an order nisi, directing the garnishee to show cause why the funds should not be attached.
At this stage, the proceeding is bilateral between the judgment creditor and the garnishee. The judgment debtor is generally not a party to the initial application or the issuance of the order nisi.
Second Stage: Inter Parties Hearing and Order Absolute
Upon service of the order nisi, the garnishee appears in court to either admit or contest the attachment.14 If the garnishee admits holding funds for the judgment debtor, the court may proceed to make the order nisi absolute. Where there is a dispute, an inter partes hearing is conducted.
At this second stage, the judgment debtor may be served with the proceedings and heard only on matters related to procedural irregularities or third-party interests, not to reopen the substantive judgment.
3.3 Garnishee Proceedings as Sui Generis
The classification of garnishee proceedings as sui generis has significant procedural and jurisdictional implications. As recognized in UBA Plc v. Ekanem15 and Access Bank Plc v. Orjieh16, garnishee proceedings stand apart from the substantive judgment process.
They are enforcement actions, not a continuation of the litigation. Their sui generis nature allows them to proceed independently of the original suit, thereby justifying why courts, even when functus officio or after an appeal is entered, retain jurisdiction to conduct garnishee proceedings.
The focus is on the relationship between the garnishee and the judgment debtor, not on re-examining the merits of the judgment itself. This distinction is critical to understanding why garnishee proceedings are not automatically stayed by the lodging of an appeal.
Thus, garnishee proceedings emerge as autonomous enforcement channels, reaffirming the finality of judgments while operationalizing judicial orders without re-litigating the underlying disputes.
3.4 Rationale Behind the Garnishee Procedure
The underlying rationale behind garnishee proceedings lies in the fundamental objective of the justice system: to do justice and ensure that judicial decisions are effective and meaningful. Once a court of competent jurisdiction has adjudicated a matter and delivered a judgment, it is presumed in law and equity that the judgment reflects the just outcome of the dispute. If a court determines that a person is entitled to a monetary sum, then the administration of justice demands that such a person be enabled to recover that sum without undue obstruction17.
Garnishee proceedings serve this purpose by preventing the judgment debtor from frustrating the judgment. They allow the judgment creditor to attach and recover funds held by third parties on behalf of the debtor. To allow the debtor continued access to, and enjoyment of, funds that a court has declared lawfully belong to another would amount to a miscarriage of justice. Therefore, garnishee proceedings ensure that the fruits of litigation are not lost in procedural or tactical maneuvering.
This is particularly compelling in the case of monetary judgments. Money, being easily quantifiable and substitutable, lends itself to immediate enforcement and subsequent restitution. If the judgment debtor later succeeds on appeal, they may themselves institute garnishee proceedings to recover funds wrongly enforced against them. The process is reciprocal and equitable: both parties are capable of using the mechanism depending on the evolving status of the judgment.
In this sense, garnishee proceedings are not only procedurally autonomous but also morally and jurisprudentially necessary. They safeguard the efficacy of the judicial process by bridging the gap between judgment and execution, especially in financial disputes. By doing so, they affirm the court’s role not only as a declarer of rights but also as an enforcer of justice.
4. 0 JURISDICTION OF THE LOWER COURT OVER GARNISHEE PROCEEDINGS DESPITE PENDING APPEALS
4.1 Enforcement Power Survives Appeal and Functus Officio
The persistence of garnishee proceedings despite the formal delivery of judgment or the entry of an appeal underscores their status as independent enforcement actions. As distinct from the adjudication of substantive rights, garnishee proceedings exist solely to effectuate a completed judgment. The mere pendency of an appeal, without more, does not disturb the procedural standing of garnishee enforcement.
This position has found consistent affirmation in judicial precedent. In Sterling Bank Plc v. Kal Vegas Kapuchino Ltd18, the Court of Appeal decisively held that a pending appeal does not automatically stay garnishee proceedings. According to the Court, such proceedings are targeted at the garnishee and are not contingent upon the continuing jurisdiction of the trial court over the substantive dispute. Also, in the circumstance where there is an application for stay of execution, it does not preclude the Judgment creditor from seeking to use a garnishee proceeding, which is a separate proceeding entirely to enforce the judgment.19 The Court concluded and held that a garnishee proceeding cannot be restrained by an order of injunction, whether interlocutory or mandatory. Thus, the existence of an application for injunction to restrain the respondent from enforcing a garnishee order absolute does not act as a stay of execution. 20
The rationale is simple: since the judgment has already crystallized into an enforceable right, the enforcement process directed at third-party garnishees cannot be impaired merely by filing an appeal. The Court further emphasized that only a formal stay of execution, when granted, can interrupt or delay the garnishee process.21
This is consistent with the principle that a judgment remains valid and binding until set aside on appeal. In the absence of a stay, the judgment creditor remains entitled to enforce it, including by garnishee proceedings, irrespective of whether the matter is on appeal.
4.2 Application of Order 4 Rule 11(2) to Garnishee Proceedings
Order 4 Rule 11(2) of the Court of Appeal Rules allows the trial court to continue with proceedings not directly impacted by the appeal. Garnishee proceedings, being separate and targeting a non-party to the main action, fall within this exception. They are not directed at the substantive merits of the case or the legal rights between the original litigants.
As enforcement proceedings, they lie outside the issues submitted for appellate review. Therefore, they are not “related to” the appeal in a jurisdiction-divesting sense. Accordingly, even after an appeal is entered, the lower court retains authority to oversee and conclude garnishee actions unless expressly stayed by a higher court.
In UBA v. Ekanem22 The Court emphasized that garnishee proceedings, once commenced, remain valid and competent until expressly restrained. The garnishee’s obligations to the judgment debtor and the judgment creditor are not suspended simply by the existence of a pending appeal.
4.3 Judicial Endorsement of Garnishee Autonomy
Numerous appellate courts have repeatedly affirmed that garnishee proceedings operate independently within the broader judicial enforcement process. In Dangote Cement Plc v. Ekeson Salins Oil & Gas Ltd23, The Court reiterated that garnishee proceedings are distinct and enforceable even while an appeal is pending. The Court reasoned that enforcement mechanisms must remain available to judgment creditors to prevent judgments from being rendered ineffective.
In Access Bank Plc v. Orjieh24, the Court clarified that garnishee proceedings do not violate the functus officio principle. Rather, they are a continuation of the enforcement arm of justice, which the trial court retains jurisdiction to oversee. The purpose of that jurisdiction is not to review or modify the judgment, but to ensure that lawful debt recovery is implemented.
The balance struck by the courts is between protecting the integrity of appellate processes and preventing procedural abuse by judgment debtors. Garnishee proceedings, due to their structure and focus, avoid intrusion into the appellate territory. They are, by design and law, separate from the matters on appeal and necessary for the effectiveness of judicial remedies.
5. The Role and Participation of the Judgment Debtor in Garnishee Proceedings
As earlier discussed, garnishee proceedings represent a special and autonomous procedure under Nigerian law for the enforcement of judgments of courts of competent jurisdiction. At this juncture, we shall examine who a judgment Debtor is and their role in garnishee proceedings in Nigeria. A judgment debtor is the party against whom a final judgment or order has been given by a court of competent jurisdiction and who is bound in law to comply with and satisfy the obligations arising from that judgment until it is fully executed, set aside, or otherwise lawfully discharged. In a plethora of judicial authorities, the status of a judgment debtor in garnishee proceedings was described as “A nominal party.” In the case of UBA PLC V. EKANEM & ANOR25, the Court of Appeal has this to say:
“To properly appreciate that a garnishee proceeding is another form of execution of judgment, it is appropriate to reproduce hereunder the provision of Section 83 (1) of the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act which reads thus:
“83 (1) The Court may, upon the ex parte application of any person who is entitled to the benefit of a judgment for the recovery or payment of money, either before or after any oral examination of the debtor liable under such judgment and upon affidavit by the applicant or his legal practitioner that judgment has been recovered and that it is still unsatisfied and to what amount, and that any other person is indebted to such debtor and is within the State, order that debts owing from such third person, hereinafter called the garnishee, to such debtor shall be attached to satisfy the judgment or order, together with the costs of the garnishee proceedings and by the same or any subsequent order, it may be ordered that the garnishee shall appear before the Court to show cause why he should not pay to the person who has obtained such judgment or order the debt due from him to such debtor or so much thereof as may be sufficient to satisfy the judgment or order together with costs aforesaid.” This, in essence, is an initiation of a proceeding for attachment of debts owed to a Judgment Debtor by a person who is within the State. Such third party who is indebted to the Judgment Debtor is called the Garnishee.
By Section 83 (2) of the Act, a copy of the Order Nisi shall be served upon the Garnishee and on the Judgment Debtor.
Then Sections 85, 86, 87, 88 and 90 stipulate thus:
“85 Service of an order that a debt due or accruing to the judgment debtor shall be attached or notice thereof to the garnishee, in such manner as the Court may direct, shall bind such debt in his hands.
“86 If the garnishee does not within the prescribed time pay into Court the amount due from him to the judgment debtor, or an amount equal to the judgment debt, together with the costs of the garnishee proceedings, and does not dispute the debt due or claimed to be due from him to such debtor, or if he does not appear upon summons, the Court upon proof of service may order execution to issue, and it may issue accordingly without any previous writ of process, to levy the amount due from such garnishee, or so much thereof as may be sufficient to satisfy the judgment or order, together with the costs of the garnishee proceedings.”
“87 If the garnishee appears and disputes his liability, the Court, instead of making an order that execution shall issue, may order that any issue or question necessary for determining his liability be tried or determined in any manner in which any issue or question in any proceedings may be tried or determined, or may refer the matter to a referee.”
“88 Whenever in any proceedings to obtain an attachment of a debt it is suggested by the garnishee that the debt sought to be attached belongs to some third person or that any third person has a lien or charge upon it, the Court may order such third person to appear and state the nature and particulars of his claim upon such debt.”
“89 If the third person as described in the last preceding section does not appear, the Court on proof of service of a copy of the order may proceed to make an order as if such person had appeared.”
“90 Upon the appearance of such third person, after hearing his allegations and those of any other person who the Court may order to appear, the Court may order execution to issue to levy the amount due from the garnishee, or any issue or question to be tried and determined, and may bar the claim of such third person, or may make such other order, upon such terms with respect to any lien or charge or otherwise, as the Court shall think just.”
By Sections 85 and 86, the moment the Order Nisi is served on the Garnishee, the judgment debtor’s money in its custody is automatically attached, and where the Garnishee fails to pay the said sum within the time stipulated by the Court or did not dispute the debt due from it to the judgment debtor or did not appear before the Court to show cause, the Court may if satisfied that the Garnishee was duly served, order execution to issue and the same may issue without any previous writ of process to levy the amount due from such Garnishee, together with the costs of the Garnishee proceedings.
A close scrutiny of the aforestated provisions reveals that a judgment debtor is merely a nominal party whose money in the custody of the Garnishee is being recovered by the judgment creditor in satisfaction of the judgment debt he is owing to the judgment creditor. He is not the one requested to appear before the Court to show cause why the Order Nisi should not be made Absolute. It is only the Garnishee, and only the Garnishee is expected to inform the Court if there is any third party’s interest in the said judgment debtor’s money in its custody. So in all ramifications, it is only the Garnishee that is expected to react if the law was not properly followed or observed.
It is only against the Garnishee that execution under the Garnishee proceeding could be levied and not against the judgment debtor.” Per ORJI-ABADUA ,J.C.A in uba plc v. ekanem & anor.”
A careful perusal of the above wordings of the court shows that a judgment debtor in a garnishee proceeding is that of a nominal party and no more. However, despite the status of the Judgment Debtor as seen above, can we now say that because a Judgment Debtor is a nominal party, they should not participate in the proceedings? The answer is a capital no. On the contrary, since the process of a garnishee is initiated by way of ex parte motions, the Judgment Debtor is not a necessary party until the order nisi is granted and served on the Judgment Debtor26.
It must be noted that where the Judgment Debtor is served with the order nisi, the Judgment Debtor will have the right of reply. That is to say, the right to deny the debt, the right to correct irregularities presented by the Judgment Creditors, and whether due procedures were followed. For instance, where an order nisi was not served on the Judgment Debtor(s)27, even though the right accrued to the Judgment Debtor is limited.
5.1 The Limited Rights of the Judgment Debtor
The judgment debtor occupies a peripheral position in garnishee proceedings. Once a final judgment is delivered against the debtor, enforcement mechanisms such as garnishee proceedings are directed not at the debtor but at third parties holding funds on the debtor’s behalf. Consequently, the debtor is not a principal party and has no automatic right to participate fully in the proceedings.
The Courts have consistently held that the judgment debtor’s rights in garnishee proceedings are limited to procedural fairness. In Gwede v. Delta State House of Assembly28, the Supreme Court emphasized that a judgment debtor can only be heard where irregularities are alleged, and not to reopen substantive issues that have been finally adjudicated. The judgment debtor may draw attention to procedural defects, jurisdictional issues, or misrepresentation of material facts, but cannot use garnishee proceedings as a platform to re-argue the original claim.
In the case of Wema Bank V Brastem-Sterr29, the court was of the opinion that the judgment debtor is a passive respondent. It therefore means that the judgment debtor is entitled to appear in court on the hearing date, having been served with the Order Nisi, but he is generally not entitled to be heard.
However, in NAOC V Ogini30, which was also decided in 2011, the same year as the above case, the Court of Appeal took a different view that, when a judgment debtor is served with Order Nisi, there is an opportunity to convince the court to discharge the Order Nisi by filing an affidavit to that effect. The Court here is saying that the judgment debtor can be heard.
In a recent case of Sani v Kogi State House of Assembly31, the Supreme Court, while referring to earlier decided cases, reiterated that there are certain circumstances under which the judgment debtor will be heard and certain circumstances under which he will not be heard. According to the apex Court, if the judgment debtor seeks to draw attention to misleading facts being put forward by the judgment creditor and as such affect his interest in the judgment debt, he can be heard. On the other hand, if the judgment debtor, by his application, challenges or tries to reopen issues settled in the judgment sought to be enforced, he cannot be heard.
5.2 When and How the Judgment Debtor Can Be Heard
The judgment debtor may be heard where the application of the judgment creditor misrepresents the amount of the judgment debt, or erroneously identifies the garnishee or account to be attached. In such cases, courts have permitted the judgment debtor to intervene solely for the purpose of clarifying material facts relevant to the fairness and legality of enforcement.
In Speaker, Jigawa State House of Assembly & Ors v. Abubakar32, the Court of Appeal reaffirmed that while a judgment debtor is not strictly barred from being heard in garnishee proceedings, their participation is conditional. The judgment debtor may only be heard if the facts of the case reveal a genuine procedural irregularity or error that could result in manifest injustice. However, if the debtor seeks to relitigate the case under the guise of objecting to enforcement, the court will decline audience. This judicial approach maintains a balance between the rights of judgment debtors and the need to preserve the efficacy of court judgments. It allows for procedural fairness without undermining finality.
5.3 Standing (Locus Standi) in Garnishee Proceedings
Garnishee proceedings are initiated and prosecuted between the judgment creditor and the garnishee. The judgment debtor is not a necessary party for the proceeding to be valid. Accordingly, the debtor’s locus standi is restricted.
In Bureau for Local Government & Chieftaincy Affairs v. Onu33 , the Court of Appeal struck out an application brought by judgment debtors on the basis that they lacked standing to challenge garnishee proceedings to which they were neither necessary nor competent parties. The Court noted that the garnishee process was between the judgment creditor and the entity holding the debtor’s funds, and the debtors had become mere interlopers.
This position underscores that the judgment debtor’s only right is to be notified and, where necessary, raise procedural objections. They cannot use garnishee proceedings as a forum to delay or frustrate enforcement.
5.4 Procedural and Strategic Implications
The limited role of the judgment debtor in garnishee proceedings strengthens the finality of judicial determinations and enhances the enforcement process. If judgment debtors could routinely challenge garnishee proceedings on substantive grounds, it would render final judgments ineffective.
Thus, courts must be vigilant to restrict debtor interventions to legitimate procedural challenges. Simultaneously, judgment creditors must ensure strict compliance with service and procedural requirements to foreclose claims of denial of fair hearing. By clearly circumscribing the judgment debtor’s role, the legal system ensures both fairness and efficacy in enforcement.
6. Conclusion and Recommendations
In conclusion, garnishee proceedings are a separate and distinct mechanism of enforcing monetary judgments in the Nigerian courts of competent jurisdiction. Despite the general doctrines of functus officio and jurisdictional divestment upon the entry of an appeal, Nigerian courts have consistently affirmed that enforcement jurisdiction survives judgment and appeal, except where expressly stayed.
This article traced the autonomy of garnishee proceedings to statute, reinforced by procedural rules, and validated by a robust body of judicial authority. The Article also explained the status and the role of the Judgment Debtor in garnishee proceedings. Equally, the limited and conditional role accorded to judgment debtors strikes a careful balance between procedural fairness and the imperative of effective judgment enforcement.
Ultimately, the jurisprudence on garnishee proceedings reflects a deliberate judicial policy aimed at preserving the efficacy, credibility, and authority of court judgments. A legal system that adjudicates rights without ensuring their enforcement risks reducing justice to a mere academic exercise. Garnishee proceedings, therefore, serve as a vital bridge between adjudication and satisfaction, ensuring that judgments of Nigerian courts are not only pronounced but that the fruit of those judgments is realised.
6.1 Summary of Key Findings
This article has demonstrated that garnishee proceedings are procedurally distinct and autonomous from the original substantive suit. Although a trial court becomes functus officio after delivering judgment and loses substantive jurisdiction upon the entry of an appeal, its jurisdiction over enforcement mechanisms like garnishee proceedings survives. Garnishee proceedings, being sui generis and enforcement-centered, fall within the permissible scope of actions that can continue at the trial court level under Order 4 Rule 11(2) of the Court of Appeal Rules.
Judicial authorities have consistently upheld the separateness of garnishee proceedings, emphasizing that they do not constitute a revisitation of the substantive merits but rather a lawful mechanism for executing a judgment debt. Furthermore, the judgment debtor’s role in garnishee proceedings is limited to raising procedural objections, ensuring that enforcement proceedings are not derailed by unnecessary relitigation.
Importantly, this article also contextualized the rationale behind garnishee proceedings, situating them within the broader goals of justice. It emphasized that monetary judgments require mechanisms that guarantee their timely and meaningful enforcement. Garnishee proceedings satisfy this purpose by preventing judgment debtors from circumventing final decisions and allowing reciprocal recovery if appellate outcomes shift.
6.2 Recommendations
Given the procedural and doctrinal complexities surrounding garnishee proceedings in the context of appellate practice, the following recommendations are advanced:
- Judicial Clarity and Consistency: Courts should continue to affirm that garnishee proceedings fall outside the scope of substantive jurisdiction divested by either functus officio or the entry of an appeal, unless there is a formal order of stay.
- Legal Practitioner Awareness: Legal practitioners should be trained to appreciate the autonomous nature of garnishee enforcement and the precise procedural rights of judgment debtors to avoid unnecessary delay tactics.
- Procedural Safeguards: While judgment debtors should be permitted to raise genuine procedural concerns, courts must ensure such interventions do not evolve into backdoor challenges to finalized judgments.
- Rule Reform: Future procedural rules may codify the principles articulated in judicial precedent, including the limits of appeal based divestment and the defined role of judgment debtors in garnishee matters.
- Balanced Enforcement Regime: Courts should reaffirm that garnishee enforcement is a fair and reversible process, especially where the judgment sum is monetary. This ensures that even if appellate outcomes change, restitution is viable.
Through these measures, Nigerian civil procedure will continue to evolve in support of a justice system that not only adjudicates but enforces rights with efficacy and integrity.
1 Erwin B. Ellmann, ‘Arbitrator Ethics and the Second Look: Functus Officio in the National Labor Policy’ Berkeley Journal of Empowerment and Labor Law, [1992] [13], 416.
2 Beatrice Nkechi Okpalaobi, ‘Garnishee Proceedings Under the Jurisdictions of National Industrial Court: An Appraisal,’ Nnamdi Azikiwe Awka, Journal of Commercial and Property Law (2024) (11), 1. < https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Delivery.cfm/SSRN_ID4397453_code5797660.pdf?abstractid=4397453&mirid=1> [Accessed 5th June ,2025].
3 Ogunlade F and Aladejana T, ‘Potency of Judicial Powers and Challenges of Independent Judiciary in Focus’ [2025] ABUAD Law Journal.
4 Olawunmi I, ‘A Judgment Debtor in Garnishee Proceedings in Nigeria: To Be Seen or to Be Heard?’ [2021] SSRN Electronic Journal.
5 Awoniyi v. Registered Trustees of the Rosicrucian Order [2000]10 NWLR (Pt. 676) 522.
6 Order 4 rule 11(1) of the Court of Appeal Rules 2021, made pursuant to the Court of Appeal Act, Cap C36, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004.
7 [1992] 1 NWLR (Pt. 216) 124.
8 Order 4 Rule 11 (2) Court of Appeal Rules.
9 G. Nwaeze, ‘Garnishee Proceedings in Nigeria: The Effects of Order Absolute’ [2022] SSRN Electronic Journal.
10 Beatrice Nkechi Okpalaobi, ‘Garnishee Proceedings Under the Jurisdictions of National Industrial Court: An Appraisal,’ Nnamdi Azikiwe Awka, Journal of Commercial and Property Law [2024] (11), 1. < https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Delivery.cfm/SSRN_ID4397453_code5797660.pdf?abstractid=4397453&mirid=1> (Accessed 5th June ,2025).
11 [2017] LPELR 42368 (SC) 8 – 11 [F – C].
12 Beatrice Nkechi Okpalaobi, ‘Garnishee Proceedings Under the Jurisdictions of National Industrial Court: An Appraisal,’ Nnamdi Azikiwe Awka, Journal of Commercial and Property Law (2024) (11), 1. < https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Delivery.cfm/SSRN_ID4397453_code5797660.pdf?abstractid=4397453&mirid=1> (Accessed 5th June ,2025).
13 G. Nwaeze, ‘Garnishee Proceedings in Nigeria: The Effects of Order Absolute’ [202] SSRN Electronic Journal.
14 Maureen Stanley-Idun, James Atta, Ph.D, “Civil Litigation in Nigeria” (4TH Edition 2022). P.687.
15 [2010] 2 NWLR (Pt. 1177) 181
16 [2017] LPELR-49384(CA)
17 A. Wodi, ‘The Garnishee Is Not Don Quixote: Reflections on the Role of the Garnishee in Garnishee Proceedings’ [2023] SSRN Electronic Journal.
18 [2021] LPELR-56472(CA)
19 NITEL V ICIC (Directory Publishers) [2009] 16 NWLR (pt.1167) 356.
20 Maureen Stanley-Idun, James Atta, Ph.D, “Civil Litigation in Nigeria” (4TH Edition 2022). P.687.
21 A. Wodi, ‘The Garnishee Is Not Don Quixote: Reflections on the Role of the Garnishee in Garnishee Proceedings’ [2023] SSRN Electronic Journal.
22 [2010] 2 NWLR (Pt. 1177) 181.
23 [2024] LPELR-62744(CA).
24 [2017] LPELR-49384(CA).
25(2009) LPELR-8428(CA) (Pp. 7-12 paras. E).
26 SECTION 83(2) OF THE SHERIFFS AND CIVIL PROCESS ACT
27 TAIWO TEMITAYO OGUNDIRAN ESQ.”Refusing to be a Bystander: The procedural implication of the Supreme Court Judgment in the case of Jekins Juvie Giane Gwede v. Delta State House of Assembly & Anor SC/595/2018 IN Garnishee Proceedings, [2019] <https://mylawaxis360.wordpress.com/2019/07/11/refusing-to-be-a-bystander-the-procedural-implication-of-the-supreme-court-judgment-in-the-case-of-jekins-duvie-giane-gwede-v-delta-state-house-of-assembly-anor-sc-595-2018-in-garnishee-proceed/> Accessed 16th January, 2026.
28 [2019] LPELR-47441(SC)
29 [2011] 6 NWLR (Pt.1242).
30 [2011]2 NWLR (Pt.1230) p.131.
31 [2022] ALL FWLR (Pt.1130) SC 612 Pp 645-647, paras A-E. P.648, paras C-D.
32 [2022] LPELR-56957(CA).
33 [2022] LPELR-58227(CA).