By O.W.Bamigbaiye .Esq.
The Supreme Court of Nigeria, in it’s recent landmark judgement delivered on 16th of January 2026 in CENTRAL BANK OF NIGERIA v.LIDAN ENGINEERING LIMITED & 6 ORS. ( SC/ CV/82/2021) has authoritatively settled a lingering controversy regarding the status of the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) in garnishee proceedings.
The apex Court emphatically affirmed that the CBN, when acting in it’s capacity as a banker to government agencies, does not stand as a ” public officer” within the contemplation of Section 84 of the Sheriff and Civil Process Act, Cap. S6, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria. 2004 (SCPA). This decision has profound implications for judgement enforcement and the dynamics of garnishee proceedings involving federal government funds.
This position truly and correctly interprets and reflects the real and true intentions of the law makers. I really think the law need to be amended to reflect the law makers real motives and objectives behind the law ,which is that, as explained in plethora of authorities especially CBN v. INTERSTELLAR, is to prevent causing embarrassment to the government by preventing a situation where the government is being compelled or ordered to pay a judgement debt with the use of special funds kept for special purposes, and all that is required to achieve this is to give notice to the government through the Attorney Generals and not to use the section as a weapon to shield government agencies and public officer from fulfilling their debt obligations as now been done by public agency judgement debtors , with the aid of CBN and allowed by the Courts out in most cases.
I have not come across any record anywhere that the Attorney Generals of the Federation or any state actually granted consent to judgement creditor to pursue a garnishee proceedings pursuant to S. 84 of SCPA.
To me, the wordings of Section 84 of the SCPA is more than clear as to it’s intentions, contemplation and application . It’s application was clearly and deliberate was deliberately spelt with conditions under which it will apply , which clearly excludes the Central Bank acting in it’s capacity as a banker, when it said ….in it’s capacity as a public officer , and if you juxtapose this with Section 2( e ) which describes the role and position of the Central Bank in respect of funds belonging to government and it’s agencies in it’s custody as their banker , then it makes the position as clear as day.
I am of the believe the public agencies the section contemplates for it’s purpose are agencies like Accountant General of the Federation, RMARFC , and other agencies who may hold government fund in their capacity as public agencies but not as bankers . It is my opinion that the Law should be amended to be more specific in respect of the CBN.
The true position of the law as canvassed by his Lordship , Honourable Justice Ogunwumiju JSC , that Section 84 of the SCPA is inconsistent with the provision of Section 6(6) of the Constitution of the Federal republic of Nigeria (as amended) and therefore void to the
extent of it’s inconsistency, as it denies the right of litigants to seek remedy in Court.
O.W.Bamigbaiye
Principal Partner
Corpora
