The Court of Appeal in Abuja has dismissed fresh attempts by the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) and Ahmadu Bello University (ABU) to block the payment of a ₦2.5 billion judgment debt owed to 110 workers unlawfully dismissed by the university in 1996.
In two separate unanimous judgments delivered by a three-member panel, the appellate court ordered the CBN to immediately release the ₦2.5 billion to the affected former ABU staff without further delay.
Delivering the lead judgments, Justice Okon Abang warned that severe sanctions would be imposed on officials of the apex bank should it continue to withhold the funds, which ABU had deposited with the CBN since 2018 for the settlement of the judgment debt.
Justice Abang rejected the CBN’s argument that the workers could not initiate garnishee proceedings against it to recover their entitlements, despite being reinstated by the National Industrial Court after their unlawful dismissal.
The court also dismissed the bank’s claim that the consent of the Attorney General of the Federation and Minister of Justice was required before the payments could be made.
CBN and ABU had separately appealed the judgment of the National Industrial Court, which found that the workers were illegally sacked by the university’s Sole Administrator, General Mamman Kontagora, in 1996, and ordered the payment of their outstanding entitlements.
Both appellants also challenged the garnishee proceedings used by the workers to enforce the judgment. However, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals as lacking merit.
Justice Rakiya Haastrup of the National Industrial Court had, on January 27, 2022, issued a garnishee order absolute directing the CBN to pay the judgment sum from ABU’s funds.
Upholding the order, Justice Abang ruled that the workers acted lawfully in initiating garnishee proceedings against the CBN to enforce payment.
The appellate court criticised the CBN for expending public funds on legal actions aimed at frustrating the payment of the workers’ entitlements, describing the bank’s conduct as reckless and unfair, given that the funds were already in its custody for that purpose.
