(Being a paper presented by Barr. Ekemini Udim in a Seminar Organised for the Legal Officers and Directors of Administration of the 31 Local Government Councils  of Akwa Ibom State under the sponsorship of the Local Government Service Commission)

Protocol:
I was sometime last week invited to make this presentation to this dignified gathering today. I recall that I was on my way back from the Court of Appeal, Calabar when the invitation came. I thank the Chairman of the Commission, Commissioners and Directors of this great institution for this privilege, which, to quote William Worsdworth, is ‘One of those heavenly days that cannot die.’

Let me specially thank you all for the sacrifices you make on a daily basis for the sustenance of the 31 Local Government Councils of this great State. From using your money to photocopy documents at your places of work to using your money to transport yourselves from one place to the other, all for the benefit of the various Local Government Councils. I pray that a time will come (very soon) when every officer of the Local Government Councils will be provided with official vehicles to ease transportation in the course of the discharge of the day to day functions of their offices.

We also pray that the time will come when necessary gadgets and office equipments will be provided to all offices in the Local Government Councils to save the Councils from the embarrassment of frequent leakages of official information in the course of photocopying of documents in business centres.  While we look up to the better days, we pray the Almighty God to reward your present sacrifices with promotions and handsome remuneration.

Introduction:

I consider this topic very germane for obvious reasons. One of the reasons is that the Local Government is arguably the highest target of garnishee proceedings in Nigeria today. Garnishee orders are served on Local Government Councils almost on a daily basis. The frequency is so recurring that it gives serious cause to worry. Sometimes, the amount of money involved is so huge or humongous that one begins to wonder what will be the fate of the third tier of government if this trend continues unabated. As senior officers in your various Local Government Councils of assignment, you must together, find a solution to this recurring phenomenon so as to save the third tier of government from frequent financial epilepsy and seizure which the Councils repeatedly suffer as a result of heavy financial losses to garnishee proceedings.

Meaning of Garnishee Proceedings:

Garnishee proceedings are proceedings sui generis. That is, they are proceedings of a special kind in law. They are not conducted like the conventional proceedings such as land matters, matrimonial causes and other civil matters that can linger in court for many years. They are fast track proceedings in law and can be decided in less than one month from the day the applications were filed in court. In garnishee proceedings, time is of critical essence because any delay in the filing of necessary responses will definitely lead to a devastating result against the judgment debtor such as the Local Government Council.

In the locus classicus case of Union Bank of Nigeria Plc v. Boney Marcus Industries Ltd reported in (2005) 13 NWLR (Pt. 943) 654 at 666 the Supreme Court of Nigeria per AKINTAN, JSC defined garnishee proceedings in the following words:

‘Garnishee proceedings are 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. It is therefore a specie of execution of debt … By this process, the court has power to order a third party to pay direct to the judgment creditor the debt due or accruing due from him to the judgment debtor, as much of it as may be sufficient to satisfy the amount of the judgment and the cost of the garnishee proceedings. See: Words and Phrases Legally Defined, 3rd Edition, Vol. 2, pages 313 – 314.’

The garnishee could be a bank, a customer to the judgment debtor, an employer, etc. A somewhat broad definition of the garnishee has been carefully defined in the following words:

‘A garnishee is a third party (bank, customer, employer etc) who, while not involved in a court case between a debtor and a creditor or a defendant and a plaintiff (the garnisher), is required by a court order (garnishee order) to seize, in part or in full, the money (account balance, payment, wages) belonging to the debtor or defendant, and transfer it to the creditor or plaintiff until a debt or claim is satisfied.’

(See: www.businessdictionary.com/definition/garnishee (visited on 16/3/2017).

In Azubuike v. Diamond Bank Plc reported in (2014) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1394) 116 at 127 the Court of Appeal, Abuja Division seized an opportunity presented before her and made a considered pronouncement on garnishee proceedings. The Court held thus:

‘By virtue of Sections 83 – 92 of the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act, the attachment of debts by garnishee proceedings is one of the ways a judgment creditor can execute his judgment. It enables a judgment creditor to attach an amount of money in the hands of any other person who is indebted to the judgment debtor. That third person is the garnishee and an order nisi is made initially by the court, to attach the moneys in the hands of the garnishee. Subsequently, the garnishee will be ordered to appear and show cause why he should not pay the debt he owes to the judgment debtor or so much thereof to the judgment creditor, to satisfy the judgment sum and cost.’

Garnishee proceedings have become an in integral part of the Nigerian legal with courts of law making pronouncements on garnishee applications on a daily basis.

GARNISHEE PROCEEDINGS AS THEY AFFECT THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT COUNCILS:

  1. Local Government Councils will always be confronted with garnishee applications:

Until such a time when the Local Government Councils will no more owe, garnishee proceedings will continue to be taken against them. But garnishee proceeding are avoidable. Most of us in this hall, as individuals have never been garnished by anybody whatsoever. This reason is simple; we are not indebted to anybody. We do not award contracts for the construction of houses for our dwelling or personal aggrandisement when we do not have the means to pay the contractor. We do not take huge loans. We leave within our means. For these reasons, we can beat our chests and boast that garnishee proceedings will never be commenced against us till we depart this earth to meet with our Creator at the ripe age of 110.

But same cannot be said of the Local Government Councils. Most of the Councils are in the inglorious state of perpetual indebtedness. It will take many years to re-pay some of the debts. Some of the debts are huge loans from financial institutions with interests accruing on a monthly basis. Some are debts owed to contractors. Others are debts owed to disengaged staff. The list is endless. The sad reality therefore is that Local Government Councils will always be confronted with garnishee applications.

This reality therefore makes it imperative for you to brace up for the salvation of the Councils and their liberation from imminent collapse. Like a terminal disease, this unfortunate reality must be properly managed by all of you seated here. You can only do this by acquainting yourselves with the fundamentals of garnishee proceedings. Your knowledge of the subject matter must be up to date and regularly ungraded.

But we cannot continue this way. We must seek a reversal of the trend. Unnecessary debts can be avoided. We must realize that Local Government Chairmen are only but visitors to our places of work and livelihood. They are just ‘’stopping over’’ in the course of their political careers and will leave the Council in no time. For this reason, we have a duty to politely advise them against putting the Local Government Councils into everlasting debts. At the FGPC, we must make your voices heard. We must politely refuse to sign some contracts documents and perhaps send a report to the Commission for our protection. In that way, unnecessary debts will not be incurred and garnishee proceedings against the LGCs will be eliminated to the barest minimum.

  1. The Local Government can as well institute garnishee proceedings against its debtors:

Garnishee proceedings are judicial proceedings commenced by a judgment creditor for the recovery of debts from the judgment debtor. Thousands of people are today indebted to the Local Government Councils. The Local Government Councils can as well go after them for purpose of recovering the debts.

Every Local Government Council is by law, a corporate personality and can sue, just as it can be sued. Therefore, the Local Government Councils were you work, can institute proceedings in court against persons owing the Councils. As soon as judgment is obtained, garnishee proceedings can rightly be commenced in the name of the Council for purpose of recovering such debts by garnishment. I have heard someone saying, it has never been done before. That is why you are here today. That is why you were posted to that Local Government Council you currently work in. It is for you to make the much needed difference. There is nothing in law that stops the Local Government Councils from instituting garnishee proceedings against their debtors for purpose of recovering of the debts owed to such Councils.

  1. The Local Government can negotiate garnishee proceedings out of court

As noted earlier, garnishee proceedings are proceedings on the fast lane. There is no room for waste of time. Once a garnishee matter is commenced, the target is to get the money attached and paid out as soon as possible.

Notwithstanding its peculiar nature, garnishee proceedings can still be settled out of court. Upon being served with a garnishee order nisi, the Legal Officer should carefully scrutinise the case, write his opinion and consult with his superiors for necessary action. If the case is a bad one, there is need for soft landing, especially if the Local Government Council does not have the money to pay the judgment creditor in full. In such case, the Council can ask for settlement of the debt by installmental payment. In that way, the Council will not be grinded to a halt because of one garnishee matter. The Legal Officer can file application to the court for an opportunity to settle the matter out of court. The Legal Officer should also reach out to the lawyer on the other side.  But the Local Government Chairman must give the Legal Officer the necessary backing to do the above. The Chairman must also be sincere so as not to abandon the Legal Officer in the middle of the ocean and dent the image of the lawyer before the court to which the lawyer will always return for the prosecution or defence of matters.                       

POSSIBLE OBJECTIONS AND DEFENCES IN GARNISHEE PROCEEDINGS:

In law and in reality, the work of the opposing party is to destroy the case of the proposing party. This is the truth. Let’s not pretend about it. What else does it mean to ‘’defend’’ a matter? For this reason (except the Council is ready and has the cash to immediately satisfy the garnishee order absolute), garnishee applications should be defended. This can be done by way of ‘’objections’’ and ‘’defences’’.

THE POSSIBLE OBJECTIONS –

  1. That the garnishee does not reside within jurisdiction

Section 83(1) of the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act is unequivocal in its provision that garnishee proceedings can only be commenced and prosecuted against a garnishee that is indebted to the judgment creditor and is within the State, that is to say, the garnishee must be a person who is resident within the jurisdiction of the court. For purpose of clarity and ease of reference, we seek the liberty to reproduce the said section as follows:

“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.”

Therefore, where a garnishee proceeding is taken against a garnishee who is not resident in anyway whatsoever within the State from which the order nisi was issued, such proceeding is by section 83(1) of the Act, incompetent and liable to be struck out. If Uyo Local Government Council has money in Aso Microfinance Bank, Asokoro, Abuja, such money is outside Akwa Ibom State and therefore no garnishee proceedings can be validly commenced against Uyo LGC in a High Court in Uyo to compel Aso Microfinance Bank, Asokoro, Abuja to pay money to a judgement creditor. Before anyone can garnish the account of Uyo Local Government  in Aso Microfiinance Bank, that bank must have a physical presence in Akwa Ibom State else the bank will not be said to be within jurisdiction.

A bank or any other corporate entity in Lagos State Nigeria, cannot be compelled by an order nisi issued by a court in Akwa Ibom State to appear in Akwa Ibom State and show cause why the order nisi should not be made absolute, if such bank or corporate entity has no physical presence in Akwa Ibom State. Such order, will by section 83(1) of the Act be incompetent, ultra vires and liable to be struck out.

However, taking the commercial banks in Nigeria as a case study, it can safely be said that virtually all the major commercial banks in Nigeria have their branches in all the States of the Federation and therefore garnishee proceedings can rightly be taken and orders issued from any State against such banks.

On receipt of the order nisi from any court, the Legal Officer should first ask and answer the question whether the bank has any physical presence in the State from which the order nisi was issued. If she has none, then the stage is set for an objection to the garnishee proceedings.

However, temporary physical presence of the garnishee within jurisdiction at the time of issuance of the order nisi will suffice. It is therefore immaterial that the garnishee has packed out of jurisdiction after the issuance and service of the order nisi on her. See: Sokoto State Government v. Kamdax (Nig) Ltd. (2004) 9 NWLR (Pt. 878) 345, particularly the dictum of Chukwuma – Eneh, JCA (as he then was) at page 380 – 381.

  1. That there was no proper service on the garnishee

Service of court processes is an issue of jurisdiction which goes to the root of the matter before the court. Therefore, without proper service in the way and manner prescribed by law or rules of court, the court would lack the jurisdiction to adjudicate on the matter. It is the law that jurisdiction is the threshold and livewire that determines the authority of a court of law or tribunal to entertain a case before it. This is absolutely so because it is only when a court is imbued or conferred with the necessary jurisdiction that it will have the judicial power and authority to entertain, hear, and adjudicate upon any cause or matter brought before it by parties. Therefore, the absence of such requisite jurisdiction would render any proceeding conducted by the court null and void, no matter how well conducted. See: Central Bank of Nigeria v. Auto Import Export (2013) 2 NWLR (Pt. 1337) 81 at 132, paragraphs B – E particularly Ratio 17.

The Legal Officer should be on the alert her.

  1. That the order nisi has not been served on the Council (judgment debtor)

By section 83(2) of the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act: “At least fourteen (14) days before the day of hearing, a copy of the order nisi shall be served upon the garnishee and on the judgment debtor.’’ Where the garnishee order nisi is only served on the garnishee without also serving same on the judgment debtor, an objection can rightly be raised as to the competency of any further step(s) in the proceedings. Indeed, the garnishee can object to the making of the garnishee nisi absolute for the reason that the order nisi has not been served on the judgment debtor in compliance with section 83(2) of the Act. The section uses the word “shall” which implies mandatoriness. The order nisi must therefore and mandatorily be served on the duo of garnishee and judgment debtor. It is immaterial that the judgment debtor is not, stricto senso, a party to garnishee proceedings. Service on him is mandatory.

In Wema Bank Plc v Brastem-Sterr (Nig) Ltd (2011) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1242) 58, the Court of Appeal, Lagos Division held thus on the compulsory requirement of service of garnishee order nisi on the judgment debtor:

‘In garnishee proceedings, the service of the order nisi on the judgment debtor is a condition precedent to the jurisdiction of the court to make an order absolute. Failure to serve the order nisi before an order absolute is made is a fundamental omission which renders the proceedings void because the court would have no jurisdiction to entertain the next stage in the garnishee proceedings. In the instant case, the 2nd respondent as judgment debtor was not served with the order nisi which was mandatory before order absolute was made. This was a fundamental omission which rendered the proceedings void because the court had no jurisdiction to entertain the next stage in the garnishee proceedings.” (pp.80, para. C; 82, paras, E-F).’

In the case of Cross River State Forestry Commission v. Muri Anwan (2012) 40 WRN 175, non-service of the garnishee order nisi on the judgement debtor was the issue on appeal. In that case, the judgment debtor filed a motion before the Federal High Court, Calabar and complained that the order nisi has not been served on her. The complaint was ignored and the order nisi made absolute apparently on the ground that in garnishee proceedings the judgment debtor is not a party and therefore cannot be heard. Aggrieved, the judgment debtor appealed to the Court of Appeal, Calabar Division where HONOURABLE JUSTICE NDUKWE-ANYANWU, JCA upheld the appeal and held thus:

‘Section 83(2) of the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act provides that the judgement debtor must be served the order nisi. This is a condition precedent to the granting of the order absolute. Failure to serve the judgment debtor the order nisi is a fundamental error that robs the court of the necessary vires to continue with the proceeding. The Federal High Court sitting at Calabar was robbed of jurisdiction when it failed to serve the judgment debtor, the order nisi and went ahead to declare the order absolute. The order absolute made by the court is therefore a nullity.” (At page 10, paragraph E-H).’

In this case, the Court of Appeal conceded to the argument that the judgment debtor is not a necessary party to garnishee proceedings. But the court held that the court cannot close its eyes to processes filed in court and that the law in section 83(2) of the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act, includes the judgment debtor as one of the parties to be served with the order nisi. See: Ndukwe-Anyanwu, JCA at page 8, paragraphs E – F of the report.

Therefore, service of the order nisi on the judgment debtor is mandatory, failure of which raises an objection to the proceedings.

  1. That the order nisi is not predicated on a valid and subsisting judgment

By section 83(1) of the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act, a garnishee proceeding can only be predicated on a valid and subsisting judgment of a court of law. In the exact words of the section, a garnishee application can only be made by a person who is entitled to the benefit of a judgment for recovery of money. Consequently, in the absence of a valid and subsisting judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction, objection can be raised to the commencement and prosecution of garnishee proceedings. A man cannot therefore institute garnishee proceedings and pray the court to compel a third party (garnishee) to pay over to him a debt which is owed him by another in the course of his business transactions with that other person except and unless such debt had been pronounced upon by a court of law. Indeed, garnishee proceedings is basically between a judgment creditor and the garnishee for the payment or recovery of judgment debt owed the judgment creditor by the judgment debtor. The basic nomenclatures in garnishee proceedings are judgment creditor, garnishee and judgment debt. Therefore, there cannot be a judgment debtor, judgment creditor and judgment debt in the absence of a valid and subsisting judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction.

In the case of Nigerian Telecommunications Plc v. I.C.I.C. (Directory Publishers) Ltd (2009) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1167) 356 at page 388, paragraph A, the Court of Appeal, Abuja Division per OMOLEYE, JCA held that the law is trite that a garnishee proceeding can only be commenced where a valid judgment had been obtained and same subsists.

Similarly, in Union Bank of Nigeria Plc v. Boney Marcus Industries Ltd (2001) 13 NWLR (Pt. 731) 567 at page 595, paragraph D, the Court of Appeal,  Port Harcourt Division, per IKONGBEH, J.C.A stated that:

“Garnishee proceedings have but one cause to set them in motion. Before they can arise, a suit or an action must have been prosecuted to judgment in which an order for the payment of money to one of the parties is embodied. It can arise in no other way.”

The garnishee is therefore in very good position to object to the proceedings in the event that such proceeding is not rooted in a valid and subsisting judgment of a court of law.

  1. That the certified copy of the judgment has not been attached to the garnishee application

By order VIII (3) of the Judgments (Enforcement) Rules, a judgment creditor who desires to take garnishee proceedings shall file in the court’s registry an affidavit and if the garnishee proceedings are taken in a court other than the court in which the judgment was given or made, a certified copy of the judgment must be attached to the application.

Therefore, an objection would be validly raised to the competency of a garnishee application if the certified copy of the judgment that pronounced the debt owing is not attached to the application where the application is taken in a court other than the court that pronounced the debt. The non-compliance will amount to procedural irregularity and such irregularity is fundamental and fatal in view of the use of the word “shall” in the provision of Order VIII (3)(1)(b) of the Judgments (Enforcement) Rules. Such failure on the part of the judgment creditor/applicant would lead to the striking out of the garnishee application.

  1. That the Consent of the Attorney General has not been obtained

By the provision of section 84 of the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act, where money liable to be attached by garnishee proceedings is in the custody or under the control of a public officer in his official capacity, the order nisi shall not be made to attach such funds unless the consent for such attachment is first obtained from the Attorney General of the State or of the Federation as the case may be.

Where the money is in the custody and control of the public officer in his official capacity, failure on the part of the judgment creditor/applicant to obtain the consent of the Attorney General before commencing garnishee proceedings against the government renders the proceedings incompetent and liable to be struck out. Notice should be taken of the use of the word “shall” in section 84 which makes it mandatory to first obtain the consent of the Attorney General before commencement of garnishee proceedings against the government in the event that the money sought to be garnished is in the custody or control of a pubic officer in his official capacity. Such failure or omission is therefore a serious ground for objection to garnishee proceedings.

However, by the principle of law enunciated in the case of Purification Techniques (Nig) Ltd. v. Attorney General of Lagos State (2004) All FWLR (Pt. 211) 1479, monies standing in government’s account in a bank are not in custody or control of a public officer in the public service of the government and thereof, the consent of the Attorney General is not required before commencement of garnishee proceedings against the government.

  1. That there is a pending appeal against the judgment

It would be competent to raise objection to the commencement or continuation of garnishee proceedings at the lower court when there is a pending appeal duly entered at the Court of Appeal against the judgment that pronounced the debt owing. This is to forestall a situation of foisting on the Court of Appeal, a situation of fait accompli when the appeal is finally decided.

However, this application or objection cannot be granted as a matter of course. There must be sufficient evidence to proof to the court that indeed an appeal has been entered in the eyes of the law against the judgment in issue.

It is worthy to note that mere filing of the notice of appeal at the court of appeal does not imply that an appeal has been entered to preclude garnishee proceedings. An appeal is deemed to be entered when the appellate court has received the record of appeal; Agu v. Anyalogu (2002) 14 NWLR (Pt. 787) 294. See also the case of Governing Council Industrial Training Fund v. Dr. Chijioke & Anor (1998) 3 NWLR (Pt. 540) where it was held that: ‘’The Supreme Court has made the point that filing of an appeal is different from entering of an appeal. An appeal is only entered in the Court of Appeal when the record of appeal has been received at the Court of Appeal from the High Court.’’

Therefore, a party opposing a garnishee proceeding on the ground that there is an appeal against the judgment that pronounced the debt owing, must show convincing proof that the record of appeal has been transmitted to the Court of Appeal and that the said court has received same and is therefore seized of jurisdiction over the matter. Filing of notice of appeal alone does not suffice to stop garnishee proceedings. But having filed an appeal, ensure that a motion for stay is filed at the lower court. As soon as the appeal is entered at the Court of Appeal, bring that to the notice of the lower court and urge the court to hands off the matter, the Court of Appeal having been seized with the appeal. Refer the court to Order 6 Rule 10 of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2016. Once that is done, the lower court will definitely stay proceedings.

THE POSSIBLE DEFENCES:

  1. That the judgment debtor is indebted to the garnishee (lien/set off)

The garnishee could also plead lien/set off. By so doing, the garnishee is simply saying that though it is in possession of the judgment debtor’s money, the said money or a part of it cannot be paid over to the judgment creditor because the judgment debtor is also indebted to the garnishee. Indeed, the garnishee is entitled to use a defence of set-off or lien to defeat any action brought to recover money by anyone claiming through the judgment debtor. (See: Obafemi Awolowo University v. Olanihun (1996) 8 NWLR (pt. 464) 123. See also: Fidelity Bank Plc v. Francis Okwuowulu (2012) LPELR – 8497 where the court re-emphasised that the authorities are of the view that a garnishee is entitled to set off any debt due to him from the judgment debtor at the date when the order nisi was served upon him and the garnishee is equally entitled to a counter claim against the judgment debtor at any rate where it arises out of the same.

  1. That the account is in debt

An account can only be garnished if it is in credit as against debit. That is to say, if there is money in the account. Therefore, upon being served with the garnishee order nisi, the garnishee should first check to ascertain the status or balance in the account in issue. If the account is in debit or the funds not sufficient, it is the place of the garnishee to appear in court to show cause by pleading that the order nisi should not be made absolute for the reason that the account is in debit or that the money therein is insufficient to satisfy the judgment debt. The Legal Officer should work with the bank to ensure that this fact is captured and promptly filed in court.

To make this defence believable to the court, the garnishee is expected to file an affidavit showing cause and in the paragraphs of the said affidavit, the garnishee should make depositions to embellish her defence. There must also be a statement of Account attached to the affidavit. The said statement of account should prima facie, disclose or reflect the true position of the account in issue from the time of service of the order nisi on the garnishee. Anything less than the above will surely lead to the making of an order absolute against the bank, which invariably is against the Local Government Council.

  1. That the account sought to be garnished is a joint account

A joint account cannot be garnished in respect of a debt by one of the joint holders of the account. (See: Plunkett v. Barclays Bank Ltd (1936) 2 KB 107 also reported in (1936) 1 All ER 635). The garnishee can rightly raise this as a defence and the reason why the order nisi should not be made absolute. The garnishee must present details of the account in issue so as to convince the court that indeed the account is a joint account in which the judgment debtor/applicant is not a sole signatory.

  1. That the money belongs to a partnership

A Local Government Council can enter into partnership with a private company for the purpose of doing business. To attach a partnership debt the judgment on which a garnishee order is founded must be against the partnership or the individual partners jointly. Indeed the money belonging to a partnership is not attachable in an action against a partner in his individual capacity. It is immaterial that such a partner is a signatory to the partnership’s account. It is also immaterial that he is a major shareholder in the partnership. So long as the judgment that pronounced the debt owing was pronounced against the partner in his individual capacity, such debt cannot be realised through the garnishing of the account of a partnership in which the judgment debtor is merely a partner. A judgment against an individual partner can only form the basis of an attachment of his private account(s). The Legal Officer therefore has a duty to act promptly here.

Conclusion:

The Legal Officers, Directors of Administration, Heads of Personnel, Local Government Chairmen and even the Local Government Service Commission and key players in the insulation of our Local Government Areas from incessant garnishee attacks. I dare say that even the Messenger who is served with a garnishee order is equally an important player in this direction. He must immediately present same to the appropriate officers of the Council for necessary action. Like every other disturbing issues in life, garnishee proceedings can be properly handled by every Local Government Council. What is required is an uncompromising sense of purpose and determination. Since garnishee proceedings are special proceedings in law, there is also the need to adopt a special approach to the handling of such proceedings so as to save the third tier of government from the state of perpetual financial distress.

Ekemini Udim is a Barrister and Solicitor of the Supreme Court of Nigeria.  He is in fulltime law practice and has appeared and done matters in all courts of record in Nigeria up to the Supreme Court. He is a researcher on legal issues in addition to other issues of topical importance. A prolific writer, Ekemini has authored the following law books: Practice Guide on No Case Submission, Principles of Garnishee Proceedings in Nigeria, Trial within Trial in Criminal Proceedings, Practical Approach to Effective Cross-Examination, and Application for Bail. He is also a regular commentator on Radio. He is reachable on: ekeminiudimforjustice@gmail.com and O8131937282.

______________________________________________________________________ ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE FOR LAWYERS: A COMPREHENSIVE GUIDE Reimagine your practice with the power of AI “...this is the only Nigerian book I know of on the topic.” — Ohio Books Ltd Authored by Ben Ijeoma Adigwe, Esq., ACIArb (UK), LL.M, Dip. in Artificial Intelligence, Director, Delta State Ministry of Justice, Asaba, Nigeria. Bonus: Get a FREE eBook titled “How to Use the AI in Legalpedia and Law Pavilion” with every purchase.

How to Order: 📞 Call, Text, or WhatsApp: 08034917063 | 07055285878 📧 Email: benadigwe1@gmail.com 🌐 Website: www.benadigwe.com

Ebook Version: Access directly online at: https://selar.com/prv626

______________________________________________________________________ "You Don't Need To Be Rich, You Just Need To Start" — Victoria Ezeigwe, Esq Launches Investment Handbook For Nigerians Starting With ₦5,000
By Victoria-Ezeigwe-Esq

Get your copy today and take the first step toward financial growth:

👉 https://selar.co/4f16676016

_______________________________________________________________________ [A MUST HAVE] Evidence Act Demystified With Recent And Contemporary Cases And Materials
“Evidence Act: Complete Annotation” by renowned legal experts Sanni & Etti.
Available now for NGN 40,000 at ASC Publications, 10, Boyle Street, Onikan, Lagos. Beside High Court, TBS. Email publications@ayindesanni.com or WhatsApp +2347056667384. Purchase Link: https://paystack.com/buy/evidence-act-complete-annotation ________________________________________________________________________ The Law And Practice Of Redundancy In Nigeria: A Practitioner’s Guide, Authored By A Labour & Employment Law Expert Bimbo Atilola _______________________________________________________________________