First Bank CEO Adesola Adeduntan faces probe over N200 million judgment debt scandal…

As Adesola Adeduntan’s First Bank of Nigeria Limited works harder to restore its corporate image on multiple fronts, more unwanted attention is being directed at him.

Below is yet another negative news about the brand that calls into question her corporate integrity.

The Supreme Court of Nigeria’s decision in the case: SC.841/2016: Oboh vs. Nigeria Football League Ltd, (2) League Management Company Ltd, and (3) First Bank of Nigeria Plc. labeled Nigeria’s most successful tier-1 bank as “dubious and dodgy”.

The apex court found the Adesola Adeduntan-led First Bank of Nigeria Ltd liable to pay the sum of 232,915,644.00 (Two Hundred and Thirty-Two Million, Nine Hundred and Fifteen Thousand, Six Hundred and Forty-Four Naira Only) as judgment debt in their capacity as garnishee bank in its judgment of 28 January 2022. The Supreme Court issued an absolute garnishee order against the bank (as the 2nd Garnishee) jointly and severally with League Management Company Ltd as the 1st Garnishee.

Garnishee proceedings are a specific method for enforcing monetary judgments by recovering the judgment debt from a third party who is discovered to be in possession of the judgment debtor’s and/or its successor’s account and money.

In this case, the judgment creditor won a monetary judgment against Nigeria Football League Ltd (NFL) before instituting garnishee proceedings against the NFL’s successor-in-title, League Management Company Ltd (LMC), and its lenders, First Bank of Nigeria Ltd.

The Supreme Court stated on page 3 of the leading judgment, “The Appellants, as judgment creditors, proceeded by way of garnishee proceedings at the trial High Court to enforce the judgment dated 9th July 2013, in exercise of their rights and powers under section 287(3) of the Constitution, providing, inter alia, that the decision of a High Court shall be enforced in any part of the Federation by all authorities and persons and the court itself.”

They proceeded as Garnishees against League Management Company Limited and First Bank of Nigeria Plc, the 2nd and 3rd Respondents in this appeal. On the 18th of July, 2013, the trial High Court (G.N. Onyabo, J.) granted a garnishee order nisi against the garnishees, attaching the money owed in fulfillment of the judgment entered on the 9th of July, 2013 in favour of the judgment creditors. G.N. Onyeabo, J. further ordered that the garnishees appear within fourteen (14) days and file an affidavit to show cause why the order nisi should not be made absolute, attaching as exhibits – copies of the Judgment Debtor’s Statement of Account held by them…”

Clearly, the Supreme Court had carefully considered First Bank of Nigeria’s conduct in failing to deliver a detailed Statement of Account of League Management Company Ltd (1st Garnishee) as required by the Lagos High Court. Was the bank justified in failing to provide the bank statements at the relevant period, or was this an intentional miscalculation intended to thwart the course of justice?

The Supreme Court described the bank as “consistently dubious and dodgy” after being unimpressed by its actions in a case demanding stringent compliance with a court order. “In making the order nisi, the trial court exercises its undoubted judicial discretion – judicially and judiciously,” the Court stated on pages 21 – 22 of the aforementioned ruling.

When the trial court (per Onyeabo, J) made the garnishee order nisi upon the affidavit (Form 25) of Oyetuga Olugbenga Joseph (on behalf of the judgment creditor) filed on 16th July, 2013 I should take it, on the presumption of regularity (section 168(1) of the Evidence Act, 2011), that the trial court (Onyeabo, J) made the order nisi having been satisfied by the averments that the amounts of the debts due and owing or accruing for the 1st Garnishee to the judgment debtor are lodged in bank accounts, one of which is with the 2nd Garnishee and that the 2nd Garnishee, First Bank Plc of No. 35 Marina Lagos State are bankers to the 1st Garnishee who maintains Account No. 2023185845 at 2nd Garnishee’s Central Business District Abuja branch where the title sponsorship fees to the tune of over N500,000,000.00 accruing to the judgment Debtor in respect of the 2012/2013 Nigeria Premier Football League season – was deposited and further that the said account is still in credit to the tune of about N160,000,000.00.

Onyeabo, J issued an Order Nisi against both garnishees on July 18, 2013, attaching the sum in satisfaction of the judgment entered on July 9, 2013 in favor of the judgment creditor. The 2nd Garnishee, the 3rd Respondent, had been constantly dubious and dodgy on the fact averred, and acknowledged by Onyeabo, J, that at the time the order nisi was made, it had 500,000,000 filed with it in favour of the 1st Garnishee.”

The 10-year-old case concluded in favor of the judgment creditor on January 28, 2022, but the bank has maintained a delinquent posture by failing to settle the judgment obligation. We hear that First Bank returned to the Lagos High Court to seek an interpretation of the Supreme Court’s decision, which the High Court denied. Then it went on appeal and filed an application in the lower court for a supposed stay of execution of the Supreme Court’s verdict! It is up to lawyers and judges to decide whether such court actions are frivolous, that is, filed solely to prevent a judgment creditor from collecting the judgment debt or to force him to settle for less.

In this circumstance, who can fault the Supreme Court? In 1897, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. defined law as “the predictions of what the courts will do in fact, and nothing more pretentious, are what I mean by the law.” Any corporate citizen worth its salt may not want to carry a testimonial that reads: ‘Consistently Dubious and Dodgy’.

The final lap of the rule of law and the heart of the fight for justice is the enforcement of judicial judgments and decrees. As a result, Section 287 of the Constitution states:

“(1). The decisions of the Supreme Court shall be enforced in any part of the Federation by all authorities and persons, and by courts with subordinate jurisdiction to that of the Supreme Court.

“(2). The decisions of the Court of Appeal shall be enforced in any part of the Federation by all authorities and persons, and by courts with subordinate jurisdiction to that of the Court of Appeal.

“(3). The decisions of the Federal High Court, National Industrial Court, a High Court and of all other courts established by this Constitution shall be enforced in any part of the Federation by all authorities and persons, and by other courts of law with subordinate jurisdiction to that of the Federal High Court, National Industrial Court, a High Court and those other courts, respectively.”