NIGERIA Trends and Developments Contributed by: Yussuf Akinola Oyebanjo, Temilade Oluwaseun Adepate, David Ekanem and Charles Anorondu, Streamsowers & Köhn
the court. The court retains continuous supervisory jurisdiction over the process and may issue further orders regulating the management, use, or eventual disposition of the property. Order XI Rule 9 of the JER also provides for the appli - cation of proceeds derived from the sequestrated property. The court may direct that all costs and expenses incurred in the execution of the writ, includ - ing administrative expenses and the remuneration of the commissioners, be paid out of the proceeds of the sequestration. The commissioners are entitled to “such reasonable remuneration as the court may allow”, thereby ensuring that their services are com - pensated while also subjecting such compensation to judicial scrutiny. Furthermore, the JER incorporates, by reference, the provisions governing attachment of property under a decree for money, to the extent that they are appli - cable. This incorporation is significant because it aligns sequestration with the broader framework of enforcement procedure. It ensures that established principles relating to valuation, custody, protection of assets, and safeguards against wrongful execution are equally applicable in sequestration proceedings. Thus, while sequestration is unique in its coercive orientation, it is not procedurally isolated from other enforcement mechanisms. The primary basis for discharge is the purging of con - tempt or compliance with the court order by the judg - ment debtor. Once the judgment debtor obeys the order, the rationale for sequestration ceases, and the court may direct the release of the property. Alterna - tively, the court may make any other order it deems appropriate, including conversion of the sequestra - tion into another form of execution or partial discharge where justice so requires. In practical terms, the procedure and operation of sequestration make it a powerful but carefully regulated remedy. It operates at the intersection of enforcement and contempt jurisdiction, providing the court with a mechanism to compel obedience while simultaneously preserving the economic value of the debtor’s estate. Its effectiveness lies not in immedi - ate asset liquidation but in sustained pressure on the
judgment debtor through the deprivation of control over property and income. Nigerian judicial approach Nigerian courts acknowledge sequestration as a valid mode of enforcing judgments, as it is expressly pro - vided for under the JER and listed among recognised enforcement mechanisms alongside garnishee pro - ceedings, writs of fieri facias, and committal process - es. See the case of Govt . of Gongola State v Tukur (1989) 4 NWLR (Pt.117) 592. The Court, in the cases of Incorporated Trustees of Algon v Riok ( Nig ) Ltd & Ors . (2018) LPELR-45289 (CA) and APC & Anor v Moses & Ors (2020) LPELR-52700 (CA), identified the various categories of judgment that may be enforced through sequestration: • a judgment/order for payment of money; • a judgment for possession of land; • a judgment for delivery of goods; and • a judgment ordering or restraining the doing of an act (this kind of judgment may be enforced by a writ of sequestration against the property of the disobedient person). In practice however, litigants have shown a clear preference for garnishee proceedings in enforcing monetary judgments and attachment processes for tangible assets. Besides sequestration being used as a mode for enforcement of judgment, it must be stated that it could also be used as a means of attaching a property pending the determination of an action. In the case of SPDC - West Multipurpose Co - operative Society v UBA Plc (2017) LPELR-50091 (CA) (SPDC Case), the Court defined sequestration as a court-ordered deposit of a property by removing the property from the pos - sessor, usually the defendant or any person in the possession of the defendant’s property, pending the outcome of a dispute in Court in which two or more parties contend for it. The SPDC case is an interlocu - tory appeal against the decision of the Federal High Court where an ex parte order of mareva injunction against the appellant as well as a sequestration order toward the liquidation of the appellant’s business was granted. The order was granted in the interim pend -
332 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook