NIGERIA Trends and Developments Contributed by: Yussuf Akinola Oyebanjo, Temilade Oluwaseun Adepate, David Ekanem and Charles Anorondu, Streamsowers & Köhn
ing the outcome of the Court’s judgment in the case. The appellant appealed the order of the court but the appellate Court dismissed the appeal. Challenges Despite its doctrinal legitimacy, sequestration faces serious practical obstacles in Nigeria. The first is underuse. Many lawyers are more familiar with gar - nishee proceedings and fieri facias and therefore do not consider sequestration as a first-line enforcement strategy. A review of decided cases would show that while there are many judicial authorities on garnishee proceedings and fieri facias, there are limited decided cases on sequestration. The second challenge is weak enforcement infrastruc - ture. Sequestration requires trained bailiffs, active supervision by the deputy sheriff, accurate records, and a system for taking possession and accounting for income. The enforcement department in many courts is overburdened, under-resourced, and some - times delayed by administrative bottlenecks. The result is that even a procedurally sound writ may face serious implementation difficulties. The third challenge is asset opacity. Nigerian land administration, beneficial ownership structures, and property registration systems are still imperfect. Where ownership is disputed or hidden behind cor - porate vehicles, sequestration becomes difficult to plan and even harder to execute. The remedy works best when property is easily identifiable and income streams are traceable. Without good registries and reliable title information, sequestration loses much of its practical force. The fourth challenge concerns due process and pro - portionality. Because sequestration interferes with proprietary interests, the court must ensure that notice requirements are satisfied and that the remedy is not used oppressively. The risk of abuse is particularly acute where enforcement is pursued in a punitive or retaliatory manner rather than strictly for compliance. The possibility of overreach means that courts must scrutinise applications carefully and ensure that the remedy remains proportionate to the objective sought.
A fifth issue is the tension between enforcement and public administration. In some contexts, especially where public funds or public officers are involved, enforcement processes may be constrained by statu - tory requirements that are intended to protect public administration. This has been particularly evident in garnishee law, but the same broader concern informs coercive execution generally. The implication is that sequestration may be doctrinally available but practi - cally constrained by public law sensitivities. Comparative analysis – United Kingdom Compared with Nigeria, some jurisdictions have enhanced the application of sequestration for the enforcement of judgments. One such jurisdiction is the United Kingdom (UK) where sequestration is a well-developed and doctrinally refined method of enforcing judgments. In the UK, sequestration is gov - erned primarily by the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR), particularly Part 83. A writ of sequestration is express - ly recognised as a writ of execution used to enforce compliance where a party has failed to obey a court order, especially orders requiring the performance or restraint of an act. The UK framework makes a clear distinction between sequestration as an enforcement mechanism and sequestration as a sanction for contempt, thereby giv - ing the remedy doctrinal clarity. See CPRs 70, 81.9, 83.13 and 83.14. The UK approach is supported by developed procedural rules and case law, ensuring that its scope, conditions, and limitations are clearly understood within the enforcement regime. The procedural rules relating to writs of sequestration to enforce a judgment or order are contained in CPR 83. A judgment creditor must first obtain leave (per - mission) of the court by filing an application supported by affidavit evidence, after which the application must be personally served on the respondent. Once leave is granted, a request is made for the issuance of the writ, which becomes effective when it is sealed by a court officer. The sequestrators (enforcement officers) are then empowered to enter the debtor’s property, take possession of both real and personal estate, collect rents and profits, and retain the assets until compli - ance is secured. The strict adherence to procedural requirements is emphasised by judicial authority, for
333 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook