Judgment
PETER OYINKENIMIEMI AFFEN, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): This appeal is against the ruling of the High Court of Kaduna State (coram: G. I. Kurada, J.) dated 22/6/21 declining to hear and determine an interpleader summons filed by the 1st Appellant [Hon. Sanusi Mohammed] who claims ownership of a Mercedes Benz car with Reg. No. KT 6070, Chassis No. WDBKJ5KBSDF191338 seized and attached by the 2nd Respondent [Deputy Sheriff, High Court of Justice, Kaduna State] in execution of the judgment entered in favour of the 1st Respondent against the 2nd and 3rd Appellants in Suit No.
KDH/KAD/56/2016: Alhaji Salisu Musa Abdullahi & Anor v. Halidu Mohammed Amana.
The judgment (in execution of which the Mercedes Benz car was seized/attached) is the subject of Appeal No. CA/K/64/2021: Alhaji Salisu Musa Abdullahi & Anor v. Halidu Mohammed Amana pending before this Court. The 1st Appellant was neither a party to the suit at the trial Court nor is he a party in the ensuing appeal. Being dissatisfied with the ruling declining to hear the interpleader summons, the Appellants lodged the instant appeal vide a notice of appeal dated 15/7/21 and filed at the Registry of the lower Court same day, raising a sole ground of appeal.
The ruling appealed against lies at p. 100-101 of the record of appeal, whilst the notice of appeal is at pp. 102-106 thereof. As enjoined by the rules of this Court, briefs of arguments were filed and duly exchanged by the Appellants and the 1st Respondent. The 2nd Respondent did not file any brief nor was he represented by counsel at the hearing of the appeal on 22/11/21. A sole issue is distilled in the Appellants’ Brief filed on 20/8/21 (which is settled by J. J.
Usman, SAN – as he became during the pendency of this appeal) namely: “Whether the leaned trial Judge was right when His Lordship declined to hear the Interpleader Summons of the 1st Appellant”, which issue was adopted without modification in the 1st Respondent’s Brief filed on 27/9/21(which is settled by S. A. Buhari, Esq.).
It is submitted in the Appellants’ Brief that the lower Court ought to have heard and determined the interpleader summons which falls within its jurisdiction, having regard to the reliefs claimed, calling in aid the oft-cited dictum of Bairamian, FJ in MADUKOLU v NKEMDILIM (1962) 2 NSCC 374 at 379, ADEYEMI v OPEYORI (1976) 9-10 SC 31 at 49, NZEKWE v NNADOZIE (1952) 14 WACA 361 and TUKUR v GOVERNMENT OF GONGOLA STATE [1989] 4 NWLR (PT 117) 517 at 549; that S. 33 of the Sheriffs and Civil Process Law, Cap. 141, Laws of Kaduna State 1991 which is impari materia with S. 34 of the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act and Order 6(1)-(4) of the (Judgment Enforcement) Rules empower the lower Court to hear claims made in respect of property seized or attached by its officers and the Court shall make such order(s) in respect of any such claim as it thinks just.
