IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA
IN THE ABUJA JUDICIAL DIVISION
HOLDEN AT ABUJA
BEFORE: HONURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANUSI KADO
17TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020 SUIT NO. NICN/ABJ/CS/2/2018
Abu Clement & Ors. …………………………………… Judgment Creditors/Respondents
Benue Cement Company Plc
Bureau of Public Enterprises Defendants Judgment/Debtors
Guarantee Trust Bank Plc …………………………………Garnishee/Applicant
AND IN RE:
1. Central Bank of Nigeria
2. The Chief Registrar, High Court of Federal Capital Territory
3. The Deputy Sheriff High Court of the Federal Capital Territory
4. The Nigeria Police
5. The Inspector-General of Police
6. The Commissioner of Police (In Charge of Legal Services Force Headquarters)
7. The Commissioner of Police Federal Capital Territory
8. The Officer In Charge Legal Matters (O.C. Legal) FCT Command
1. This is a ruling in respect of two applications filed by the Garnishee/applicant for joinder and varying of order absolute. The ruling was slated to take place on 26/10/2020, however, it could not be delivered because the date was declared public holiday.
2. The first motion on notice was dated 4/3/2020 and filed on the same day, praying for:
1. An order of this Honourable Court granting leave to the Applicant to join Central Bank of Nigeria as the 2nd Garnishee/Respondent in this proceeding.
2. An order deeming the motion on notice dated and filed on 30th January 2020, wherein Central Bank of Nigeria was joined as a party, as having been properly filed appropriate filing fees having been paid.
3. And for such further or other order(s) as this Honourable Court may deem fit to make in the circumstances of this suit.
3. The application was brought pursuant to Order 11 rules (1) and (4) of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2017, and under the inherent jurisdiction of the court. The application is supported by a 9 paragraphs affidavit sworn to by one Christian Chukwu, a counsel in the law firm of Garland Chambers, representing the Applicant in this suit.
4. In the affidavit in support it was stated that the order nisi made on 28/09/2012, preceded Treasury Single Account policy of the Federal Government of Nigeria. However, due to the introduction of Treasury Single Account policy of the Federal Government, the Garnishee hurriedly, though inadvertently moved the funds earlier disclosed to this court into the custody of Central Bank of Nigeria, well ahead of the date the order absolute was made by this court. This was in order to avoid sanctions and possible revocation of banking license. It was also averred that at the proceeding of 19/2/2020, this court had directed that a formal application be made to join the Central Bank of Nigeria as a party to the Application seeking to vary the aforementioned order absolute. A written address was also filed along with the motion on notice.
5. Nsikak Udoh, counsel for the Garnishee/Applicant in his oral adumbration before the court relied on the averment in the affidavit in support. Counsel also relied on the written address as his argument.
6. In the written address a sole issue was formulated for determination, to wit:-
‘’Whether the Central Bank of Nigeria, considering the facts and circumstances of this case, ought to be joined in this proceedings?
7. In arguing the single issue for determination, counsel submitted that this court has unhindered powers to join a party to a suit pending before it where it deems fit pursuant to its inherent powers. In support of this submission counsel relied on the case of Hasan V Atanyi (2002) 8 NWLR (Pt.770) 581 @ 612-613, paras D-C; Onyekweli V INEC (2008) 14 NWLR (Pt.1107) 317 @ 360, paras C-E.
8. It is the contention of counsel that once an applicant for joinder can show that the party sought to be joined should of necessity be bound by the result of the action, is a party without whom a certain question in the action cannot be effectually determined and/or is a party whose interest would be jeopardised if he was not joined in the action.
9. It is contended in view of exhibit D which shows that Central Bank of Nigeria is in custody of the funds meant for satisfaction of the order absolute of this court, there is no gainsaying the fact that the justice of this case tilts towards granting an application for joinder.
10. Counsel concluded by contending that the applicant has demonstrated through exhibit D that CBN is custodian of the res of the order absolute made as per exhibit E, is a necessary party without whom the application dated 30/1/2020 cannot be determined with finality. Counsel urged the court to so hold and grant the application.
11. In response, the party sought to be joined filed 14 paragraphs counter-affidavit sworn to by one Fortunatus Adeleke Bonire, a counsel at law firm representing the party sought to be joined in this action.
12. The salient facts deposed to in the counter-affidavit are to the effect that the party sought to be joined had written to the office of the Accountant General of the Federation to ascertain the true position of the money in question. This court is functus officio in respect of this suit.
13. A written address was also filed along with the counter-affidavit. In oral adumbration before the court, Sunday Adeagbo, Esq; counsel appearing for the party sought to be joined, relied on the averment deposed to in the counter-affidavit and adopts the written address as his argument.
14. In the written address a single issue was formulated for resolution by the court, to wit:-
‘’Whether this Honourable Court having made and pronounced the garnishee order nisi dated 28/09/2012, absolute on the 2/4/2019, against the garnishee/applicant has become functus officio?
15. In arguing in opposition, counsel submitted that it is trite that once the final judgment has been entered by a court of competent jurisdiction, the court becomes functus officio. In support of this contention counsel relied on the case of Nigeria Telecommunications Plc V I.C.I.C. (Directory Publishers) Ltd (2009) 16 NWLR (Pt.1167) 356 @ 388, para A-D; RE: Diamond Bank Ltd (2002) 17 NWLR (Pt.795) 120 @ 134-135, para G-A, UBA V SAS & Ors (2015) LPELR-40394(CA), it was stated upon an order nisi being pronounced absolute, the Honourable Court becomes functus officio and the matter becomes res judicata.
16. Counsel also relied on the case of Firs Bank V Ugwu & Anor. (2017) LPELR-42581(CA), where it was emphatically stated once order nisi is made absolute, it is an order of finality between the parties.
17. In concluding his submission counsel urged the court to refuse the application since by the order absolute there is no more case before the court.
18. The second motion on notice was dated 1/10/2020 and filed on 6/10/2020. The application was brought pursuant to section 6(6) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) section 83(2) Sheriff and Civil Process Act, Order ii rules 2, 10, 12 Judgment enforcement Rues.
19. The application is praying for:-
a. An order of this Honourable Court graciously varying the order absolute of this Honourable Court made on 2nd April 2019, by directing the Honourable Accountant General of the Federation and/or the Central Bank of Nigeria to pay the sum of N104,919,037.40 (One Hundred and Four Million Nine Hundred and Nineteen Thousand Thirty Four Naira Forty Kobo), into the official account of the Chief registrar of this Honourable Court for onward transmission to the Judgment Creditors through their counsel, or as may otherwise be directed by this Honourable Court.
b. An order of this honourable Court directing Honourable Accountant General of the Federation and/or The Central Bank of Nigeria to show cause why the order absolute of this Honourable Court made on 2/4/2019 should not be varied by directing the Honourable Accountant General of the Federation and/or the Central Bank of Nigeria to pay the sum of N104,919,037.40 (One Hundred and Four Million Nine Hundred and Nineteen Thousand Thirty Four Naira Forty Kobo), into the official account of the Chief Registrar of this Honourable Court for onward transmission to the Judgment Creditors.
c. An order of this Honourable court staying the execution of the order absolute made on 2/4/2019 in this proceedings, as it relates to the Garnishee/Applicant pending the determination of this application.
d. An order restraining the judgment creditor/respondent, the Chief Registrar, National Industrial Court, all the respondents herein, or any other relevant officer of this Honourable Court whether by themselves, agents, privies or howsoever, called from executing or howsoever giving effect to the order absolute obtained in this Honourable Court on 2/4/2019, in this proceedings, pending the hearing and determination of this application.
e. And for such further or other order(s) as this Honourable Court may deem fit to make in the circumstances of this suit.
20. The application is supported by a 3 paragraphs affidavit sworn to by one Michael Aniakor a litigation clerk in the law form of Garland Chambers representing the applicant in this case.
21. The averment in the affidavit shows that the applicant paid the money subject matter of dispute into treasury single Account with Central Bank of Nigeria, to avoid sanction or revocation of Banking license. It was also stated that the failure to file further affidavit to notify the court of the development was mistake and/or inadvertence of counsel which ought not be visited on the applicant in the interest of justice.
22. A written address was filed in support of this application. Counsel formulated one issue for determination, to wit:
‘’Whether this application is deserving of a favourable exercise of discretion of this Honourable Court by granting same.
23. In arguing the sole issue for resolution counsel after reproducing the depositions in the affidavit in support contended that this court would be justified in exercising its discretion in favour of granting this application under the present circumstances particularly given the fact that the judgment creditor would not out rightly be denied of the fruits of its judgment but would only have to derive or access same from the Central Bank of Nigeria who is the current custodian of the funds in Artra Industries Nigeria Ltd V The Nigerian Bank for Commerce and Industries (1998) 4 NLR (Pt.546) 381.
24. Counsel contended the fault of bringing the change in circumstances regarding custody of funds in issue was due to inadvertence of counsel. In support of counsel’s contention that sins of counsel should not be visited on his client refers to the case of Ireogbu V Okwordu (1990) NWLR (Pt.159) 643.
25. On the issue of functus officio, counsel contended that there are exceptions. To buttress this contention counsel refers to the case of Purification Technology (Nig.) Ltd V A.G. Lagos State (2004) 9 NWLR (PT.879) 665, Vulcan Gases Ltd V G.F Industries (2001) 9 NWLR (Pt.719).
26. In concluding his submission, counsel urged the court to on the authorities cited graciously exercise its discretion in favour of granting this application as prayed.
27. In opposition counsel for the party sought to be joined filed a 14 paragraphs counter affidavit deposed to by one Fortunatus Adeleke Bonire, wherein it was averred that this court is functus officioand that the 1st respondent CBN is not a party in the substantive suit nor in the garnishee proceeding which was pronounced absolute by this court on 2/4/2019.
28. In arguing in opposition counsel contended that this court is functus office in respect of the application as it cannot review its decision.
29. counsel relied on the case of Nigeria Telecommunications Plc V I.C.I.C. (Directory Publishers) Ltd (2009) 16 NWLR (Pt.1167) 356 @ 388, para A-D; RE: Diamond Bank Ltd (2002) 17 NWLR (Pt.795) 120 @ 134-135, para G-A, UBA V SAS & Ors (2015) LPELR-40394(CA), it was stated upon an order nisi being pronounced absolute, the Honourable Court becomes functus officip and the matter becomes resducata.
30. Counsel also relied on the case of Firs Bank V Ugwu & Anor. (2017) LPELR-42581(CA), where it was emphatically stated once order nisi is made absolute, it is an order of finality between the parties.
31. In concluding his submission counsel urged the court to refused the application since by the order absolute there is no more case before the court.
32. S. O. Simon, Esq; counsel for the judgment creditor has informed this court that the judgment creditors have not fled counter affidavit but will object on points of law. On the first application counsel contended that prayer two is incompetent since the application based on which it was made has been struck out, so there is nothing to be deemed.
33. Counsel then adopted the submission of party sought to be joined and submitted further that the application was not in good faith, it is frivolous and should be refused.
34. I have carefully and painstakingly considered the two applications brought by the Garnishee/Applicant seeking for joinder and varying the order absolute made on 2/4/2019 by this court directing payment to be made by the Garnishee to the Judgment Creditors.
35. From the prayers contained in the two applications, the issues arising for resolution are that of joinder and variation of order absolute. The twin issues are intertwined and interwoven, they are inseparable in that their determination goes hand in hand.
36. However, before thrashing the issues calling for resolution, I shall comment on two other issues. The first of which relates to the assertion of the Garnishee/Applicant to the effect that this court ordered filing of application to join Central bank of Nigeria as a party in this suit. Let me say categorically, that the decision on joining of a party is that of counsel the court cannot make such decision. This court never at any time ordered or directed counsel to file application for joinder. What transpired when the counsel for the Garnishee appeared with application to vary the order absolute, the drew the attention of counsel on whether this court can make an order to a party like Central Bank of Nigeria when it is not a party in the suit.
37. The second prayer contained in the application of 4/3/2020. As pointed out by counsel for the Judgment Creditors/Respondents, prayer two of the motion papers has been overtaken by event due to withdrawal of the motion on notice of 30/1/2020, which prays for deeming the said application properly filed and served.
38. I subscribed to the submission of counsel on prayer two of the motion on notice. The counsel for the Garnishee/Applicant having withdrawn motion on notice of 30/1/2020, prayer two has become otiose, hypothetical and academic. Courts are always enjoined to avoid delving into academic exercise as same will not be of any use to process before the court. See Ijaodola V Unilorin Governing Council By withdrawing the motion of 30/1/2020, the Garnishee/applicant has abandoned prayer two of his application, the said prayer has vacated the record of the court. In the circumstances prayer two having been found to be academic is hereby discountenance.
39. I shall now turn to the issue of leave to join Central Bank of Nigeria as a party in this proceeding and that of functus officio. The counsel for the Garnishee/Applicant has made heavy whether on the necessity of joining the Central Bank of Nigeria in this proceedings. The party sought to be joined vehemently objected to the application for joinder on the ground that this case had been concluded with the making of order nisi absolute. This court is functus officio, cannot grant joinder when there is nothing pending.
40. On variation of Garnishee order absolute, counsel for the Garnishee/applicant has contended that this court has power to vary the order absolute made on 2/4/2019, as a result of change in the custody of the funds subject matter of dispute. It is contended that the failure by the Garnishee/Applicant to bring to the attention of the court the change situation was due to inadvertence of counsel. Counsel urged the court not to visit sins of counsel on the Garnishee/Applicant.
41. In response, counsel for the party sought to be joined contended, with the order nisi granted on 28/9/2012 and the order absolute made on 2/4/2019, this court has become functus officio. This court with the order nisi cannot order joinder or vary the order absolute.
42. The counsel for the Judgment Creditors/Respondents adopted the submission of counsel for the party sought to be joined and urged the court to refuse the applications.
43. It is trite law that a court of law has power to join any person in suit pending before the court in so far as that party is a necessary party. See Green V Green (1985)
44. Order 13 Rule 14(3) of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria, (Civil Procedure) Rules 2017, states, thus:-
(3) A Judge may order that the name of any party who ought to have been joined or whose presence before the Court is necessary to effectually and completely adjudicate upon and settle the questions involved in the proceedings be added.
45. It is patently clear that this court has unfettered jurisdiction to order joinder of a party who ought to have been joined or whose presence before the court is necessary to effectually and completely adjudicate upon and settle the question in the proceedings. However, this can only be done where there is a pending action before judgment is delivered.
46. The Garnishee/Applicant has insisted that the party sought to be joined is a necessary party. While the party sought to be joined is contending that this court is functus officio does not have the power to grant the prayer for joinder.
47. The Garnishee/Applicant relied on exhibit D statement of account showing transfer of N108 Million to CBN into a treasury Single Account. The Central Bank on its part is claiming that it is the accountant General of the Federal that is in a position to give information concerning the said sums transferred by the Garnishee to the Central Bank Account. The Garnishee/Applicant also relied on inadvertence of counsel as being responsible for not disclosing the information of transfer to the court.
48. I am in concord with the submission of counsel for the party sought to be joined that with the order absolute made on 2/4/2019 this court has become functus officio as the rights and obligations of the parties have been dealt with and completely settled by the order of 2/4/2019. In the circumstance, there is nothing left to be decided which would have necessitated joining party sought to be joined to be made a party in this suit. The suit having been disposed off cannot be resuscitated or reopened. The stage at which the party sought to be joined would have been entertained was during the hearing and not after conclusion of the hearing and rendering of decision of the court.
49. It is also the law that in joinder of parties, it is the party that is left out of the suit that can apply for joinder. The issue of non-joinder of party can only be raised by the party himself who was left out of the action, if, indeed he has interest in the matter. Therefore, a party who had defended an action at the trial court has no locus standi to raise the issue of the non-joinder of other parties, more particularly where the party he is complaining on behalf of was not party at the trial of the suit. In the instant case, the issue of joinder of the Central Bank of Nigeria being raised by the Garnishee, was misconceived, same is hereby refused. See Military Governor of Ondo State V Ajayi (1998) 3 NWLR (Pt.540) 27.
50. The law is trite that once a garnishee order absolute is made there is nothing left before the court in the matter. The court has become functus officio and there would be nothing left to be determined by it. See Barbedos Venture Ltd V Zamfara State Government & Anor. (2017) LPELR-42499(CA); where the apex court held that a garnishee order absolute means an executed judgment and a completed act. In the case of Makun & Ors. V FUT Minna & Ors. (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt.1278) 190, Zenith Bank Plc V John the apex court held that a final judgment renders by a court of competent jurisdiction on the merits is conclusive as to the rights and obligation of the parties and their privies and constitutes an absolute bar to a subsequent action involving same claim, demand a cause of action. In other words that a matter once judicially decided is finally decided. Per Idigbe JSC in the case of Fadiora & Anor (in Re: Samuel) V Gbadebo & Anor (1978) LPELR-1224 defined ‘finality of judgment very aptly and clearly when he held as follows:-
‘A judicial decision is deemed to be final, when it leaves nothing to be judicially determined or ascertained thereafter, in order to render it effective and capable of execution, and is absolute, complete and certain, and when it is not lawfully subject to subsequent decision, review or modification by the tribunal which pronounced it.’’ Ssee also Agbogunleri V Depo & Ors. (2008) LPELR-243(SC).
51. Sequel to judgment of this court, the Judgment Creditors moved the court via Garnishee proceeding for order nisi attaching the judgment sum against three Garnishees. On 28/9/2012, this court granted order nisi wherein the Garnishees were directed to show cause why the order nisi shall not be made absolute. On 2/4/2019, after hearing counsel for the Garnishees made order nisi absolute based on the affidavit evidence filed before the Court. The order absolute has determined the dispute completely settled and this court becomes functus officio cannot re-opened the matter by varying the order absolute. To do so will amount to nullity as this court with order absolute has been divested of power to make any other order in respect of this suit.
52. It is the order absolute that the Garnishee/Applicant want this court to vary on the ground that the money based on which the Garnishee order absolute was made is no longer in the custody of the Garnishee as the funds had been transferred to the Central Bank of Nigeria following introduction of treasury single account (TSA) by the Federal Government. Counsel attributed the failure to bring the facts of the transfer to the attention of the court to inadvertence of counsel.
53. A careful perusal of the processes filed in respect of this applications and argument of counsel will show that the order made on 2/4/2019 was an absolute order and final decision of the court on the issue of the Garnishee proceeding.
54. It is trite that a final order of court has put an end to the dispute before the court and there will be nothing left to be dealt with or for further consideration by the court. See: Sodeinde v. World Mission Agency Inc. (2010) 2 WRN 153 AT 165; Akinsanya v. UBA (2001) 42 WRN 67; Olusookun v. Popoola (2010) 5 WRN 80.
55. I am of the firm belief that the order of 2/4/2019, made by this court having disposed of the rights and obligations of parties was a final order disposing off the subject matter of dispute in the case. The effect of which has rendered this court functus officio with effect from 2/4/2019.
56. The term functus officio has been defined by the Apex Court in the case of FBN PLC v. TSA Industries Ltd (2010) 15 NWLR pt. 1216 247 SC as follows:
The phrase functus officio means a task performed, fulfilling the function, discharging the office or accomplishing the purpose and thereby becoming of no further force or authority.
A Court is said to be functus officio in respect of a matter if the Court has fulfilled or accomplished its function in respect of that matter and it lacks potency to review, re-open or re-visit the matter. Once a Court delivers its Judgment on a matter, it cannot re-visit or re-view the said Judgment except under certain conditions. per ADEKEYE JSC
57. The most obvious condition is fraud, i.e when the Judgment is obtained by fraudulent representation to the Court. In the case of Citec Intl Estate Ltd & Ors v. Josiah Oluwile Francis & Ors LPELR 2231, my lord KEKERE-EKUN JSC states the exceptions as follows:
The Supreme Court and any other superior Court of record, possesses inherent power to set aside its Judgment in appropriate cases. Such circumstances include:
a. When the Judgment is obtained by fraud or deceit.
b. When the Judgment is a nullity and a person affected by the order is entitled ex debito justitiae to have it set aside.
c. When the Court was misled into giving Judgment under the mistaken belief that the parties had consented to it.
d. Where Judgment was given in the absence of jurisdiction.
e. Where the procedure adopted was such as to deprive the decision or Judgment of the character of legitimate adjudication.
58. Also in the case of Alao v. African Continental Bank Ltd (2009) 9 NWLR pt. 672, 264 it was stated per KARIBI WHYTE JSC (of blessed memory) that:
‘’The following three principles appear to be enshrined in the provision of this Rule. First, the Court shall not review any Judgment once delivered. The exception to this prohibition where it is intended to correct any clerical mistakes or some error arising from accidental slip or omission, or to vary the Judgment or order so as to give effect to its meaning or intention. This is known as the slip rule. Secondly, there is a total prohibition from review of a Judgment which correctly represents what the Court decided. Such a Judgment shall not be varied. Thirdly, the operative and substantive part of a Judgment shall not be varied and a different form substituted.
59. Similarly, a Judgment which correctly represents the decision of the Court cannot be varied. The only aspect of a Judgment which can be interfered with subsequent to delivery is that which enables correction of clerical mistakes or some errors arising from accidental slips or omission, or to vary the Judgment or order to give effect to its intention.
60. It is pertinent to note that the Garnishee/Applicant had by the affidavit to show cause why the order nisi shall not be made absolute has averred that the Judgment Debtor had the money available in its account based on this positive averment the court made the Garnishee order nisi, absolute on 2/4/2019.
61. In the circumstances, with the order absolute made on 2/4/2019, this court is functus officio cannot vary the said order. This is beause none of the reasons which the court is allowed to vary or review its order has been shown or established by the Garnishee/applicant. The Garnishee in this case has the option of appeal if not satisfied with the order absolute.
62. The Apex Court in the case of Union Bank of Nigeria Plc v. Boney Marcus Ind. Ltd. & Ors (2005) 13 NWLR Pt. 943 p. 654, has Unequivocally held that a Ganishee order absolute seals the proceedings before the trial Court and thereby renders the Court funtus officio on the said matter.
63. The above position was restated by the Supreme Court in the case of Odutola v. Oderinde (2004) 12 NWLR (Pt. 888) 574. An order or decision is final when it finally disposes of the rights of the parties, that is to say, the decision or order given by the Court is such that the matter would not be further brought back to the Court itself, as in this case. See Akinsanya v. United Bank of Africa Ltd. v. Iron and Steel Workers Union (Supra); Omonuwa v. Oshodin & Anor. (supra).
64. By the above pronouncements of the Apex Court, this Court with the order absolute lacked jurisdiction to make order for joinder or vary the order absolute.
65. The Garnishee/Applicant has argued that it was mistake/inadvertence of counsel that caused the making of order absolute counsel urged the court not to visit sins of counsel on the Garnishee.
66. I must point out here that it is not every inadvertence or mistake of counsel that will warrant variation of order of court. The mistake must be genuine mistake. Taking into consideration the averment of the Garnishee to the effect that it was fear of sanction and loosing of license that made the Garnishee to transfer the funds to CBN is not enough to warrant variation of order absolute in that with the attachment of the funds by the order nisi the said money was no longer part of the money of the Judgment Debtor to be subjected to banking transaction until the determination of the Garnishee proceedings. The Garnishee by transferring the funds which the Court has prohibited it from touching by order nisi has violated the order of court and at the Garnishees peril. There is no mistake or inadvertence of counsel that can come to the assistance of the Garnishee this is because, directive of CBN cannot override very clear and unambiguous order of the court made for attachment of the said sum in the account of the judgment Debtor. Even if there is mistake or inadvertence is not that of counsel but that of the Garnishee that decided to disobey the order nisi.
67. I am strengthened in my view in that the burden of proving inadvertence of counsel lies on the applicant. He has to prove the existence of such inadvertence of counsel. In the case at hand the purported inadvertence is as a result of crass in diligence or disobedience of order nisi. The provisions of sections 132 and 133 of the Evidence Act, 2011, have placed the burden of first proving the existence or non-existence of the alleged inadvertence of counsel lies on the applicant who would fail if no evidence at all were produced on either side. The applicant in this case fails in its duty. See Duru v. Nwosu (1989) 4 NWLR (Pt. 113) 24
68. From all I have been saying above, I find no merit in these applications they are hereby dismissed for lacking in merit and being frivolous.
69. A cost of N50,000.00 is hereby awarded in favour of the Judgment creditors against the garnishee/Applicant. Another N50,000.00 (Fifty thousand Naira) is awarded in favour of the Central Bank of Nigeria, the party sought to be joined in this suit.
70. It is hereby so ordered.
S. O. Simon, Esq; for the Judgment Creditors,
Nsikak Udoh, Esq; for the Garnishee/Applicant
F. M. Akinyeye, Esq; for Accountant General f the Federation.
F. A. Bonire, Esq; for the Party sought to be joined, CBN