The age-old legal maxim: interesse rei publicae ut sit finis litium, meaning “it is in the public interest that there be an end to litigation,” does not always reflect the post-judgment reality in Nigeria. More often than not, the real battleground for a successful litigant begins not when judgment is delivered, but when the judgment debtor refuses to comply. It is against this background that the legal framework for judgment enforcement in Nigeria assumes its greatest practical significance.

It is trite that every successful litigant is entitled to the fruits of his judgment. The overriding purpose of judgment enforcement is to enable them to reap those fruits. Accordingly, where a judgment debtor fails or refuses to voluntarily comply with the terms of a judgment, enforcement of such judgment becomes not merely necessary, but inevitable.

Below is an exposition into three of the principal mechanisms for enforcing monetary judgments under Nigerian law, i.e., garnishee proceedings, the writ of fieri facias (fi. fa.), and the judgment debtor summons.

GARNISHEE PROCEEDINGS

Garnishee proceedings constitute one of the most widely utilized mechanisms for the enforcement of monetary judgments in Nigeria. The Supreme Court in Guaranty Trust Bank Plc v. Innoson Nigeria Ltd[1] defined garnishee proceedings as “a process of enforcing a money judgment by the seizure or attachment of debts due or accruing to the judgment debtor, which form part of his property available in execution.” In essence, garnishee proceedings afford a judgment creditor the legal means to recover a debt owed to him by compelling a third party, most commonly a bank or other financial institution that holds funds or assets belonging to the judgment debtor, to pay the same directly to the judgment creditor in satisfaction of the judgment debt.

Garnishee proceedings are sui generis, i.e., in a class of their own, and entirely different from other court proceedings, although it flows from the judgment that pronounced the debt[2].

Garnishee Order Nisi

The garnishee process begins with an ex parte [3] application by the judgment creditor for a garnishee Order Nisi[4]. The application must be supported by an affidavit disclosing, amongst other things, the amount of the unsatisfied judgment debt, the identity of the proposed garnishee, and the nature of the debt owed by the garnishee to the judgment debtor.

Upon the grant of the application, the garnishee order nisi directs the Garnishee to appear in court on a specified date to show cause why an order should not be made upon him for the payment to the judgment creditor of the amount of debt owed by the judgment debtor. The order nisi therefore performs a dual function: it places the garnishee on notice of the proceedings, and simultaneously operates as a freeze on the funds in question. Accordingly, from the moment the order nisi is served on the garnishee, the judgment debtor is effectively barred from accessing those funds pending the final determination of the proceedings.

It is important to note, however, that an order nisi does not, of itself, authorize or compel the garnishee to transfer any funds to the judgment creditor. That authority crystallizes only upon the making of the order absolute.

Garnishee Order Absolute

The order absolute is the final and conclusive order in garnishee proceedings. It is made on the return date where the garnishee fails to appear before the court, appears but does not dispute the debt due or claimed to be due from him to the judgment debtor. Upon the making of the order absolute, the garnishee is directed to pay to the judgment creditor the amount of the debt due from him to the judgment debtor, or such portion thereof as is sufficient to satisfy the judgment debt, together with the costs of the garnishee proceedings.

It is noteworthy that where money liable to be attached by garnishee proceedings is in the custody or under the control of a public officer in his official capacity, the consent of the Attorney General of the Federation must be sought before such money is attached[5].

WRIT OF EXECUTION: FIERI FACIAS (FI. FA.)

This mode of enforcement is widely deployed to enforce monetary judgments. It is issued pursuant to Section 20 of the Sheriffs and Civil Processes Act[6] directing the Sheriff of the court to seize and sell the movable and, where necessary, the immovable property of the judgment debtor, and to apply the proceeds of such sale towards satisfying the judgment debt.

Whereas garnishee proceedings target debts owed to the judgment debtor by third parties, the writ of execution or fi. fa. operates directly against the judgment debtor’s own assets, including chattels, goods, and real property.

This method of judgment enforcement is administrative. The judgment creditor approaches the registrar for the issuance of the writ upon the payment of the prescribed fee. The writ will be signed by the Judge and forwarded to the Sheriff or bailiff for execution. The Sheriff or bailiff will introduce himself to the judgment debtor, show him the writ, and attach the movable properties of the judgment debtor by taking them to the court, and they will be sold by auction after five days.

Where the movable property of the judgment debtor is insufficient to satisfy the judgment debt, the fi. fa. may extend to the attachment and sale of immovable property in accordance with Order 5 Rule 3 of the Judgment (Enforcement) Rules[7].

JUDGMENT DEBTOR SUMMONS

This mode of enforcement of a monetary judgment is issued pursuant to Section 55 of the Sheriffs and Civil Processes Act[8]. Its primary purpose is to compel the judgment debtor to appear before the court and be examined under oath as to his financial means, assets, and liabilities.

A judgment debtor served with a judgment summons but who fails to appear on the appointed date may be arrested by a warrant from the court and forcibly brought to the court[9].

Where, in the examination, the judgment debtor discloses that he possesses the means to satisfy the judgment debt but has refused or neglected to do so, the court may, as a measure of last resort, make an order committing the judgment debtor to prison[10]. It is important to emphasise that committal is not available merely because a judgment debt remains unsatisfied; it must be established during the examination process that the judgment debtor’s non-compliance is wilful rather than a product of genuine financial incapacity.

CHALLENGES TO ENFORCEMENT OF MONETARY JUDGMENT IN NIGERIA

The legitimacy of any judicial system rests, ultimately, not on its capacity to deliver judgments, but on its ability to enforce them. A judgment that cannot be enforced is, in practical terms, no judgment at all. The consequences extend beyond the parties to the dispute; assuredly, a legal system that cannot guarantee the fruits of its judgments creates systemic uncertainty that stifles commercial activity, discourages investment, and impedes national economic development.

One of the major bottlenecks to judgments’ enforcement in Nigeria is the indiscriminate or arbitrary use of applications for stay of execution and injunction pending appeal by the judgment debtors to frustrate judgment creditors. The essence of stay of execution and injunction pending appeal is to preserve the res and prevent a situation of helplessness being foisted on the appellate court[11].

In practice, the remedies of stay of execution and injunction pending appeal, which constitute legitimate interlocutory reliefs, have been systematically abused, misused, and misapplied by judgment debtors as instruments of deliberate delay. Where an application for stay of execution is refused by the trial court, the judgment debtor is at liberty to renew the same application before the appellate court and may continue the same up to the Supreme Court. The problem is most pronounced at the Apex Court, where applications currently await hearing for several years. At that level, the mere filing of an application for stay of execution amounts, in practical terms, to an indefinite suspension of enforcement, leaving the judgment creditor without remedy for years, simply by reason of the Court’s congested docket.

Another impediment to the enforcement of monetary judgments in Nigeria arises from Section 84 of the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act, which provides that funds in the custody of a public officer cannot be attached or executed upon without the prior consent of the Attorney-General. The consequence of this requirement in practice has been severe. Many litigants who have secured valid monetary judgments against government bodies find it difficult to enforce those judgments, as the requisite consent is rarely forthcoming.

Finally, other challenges include banking and administrative delays in complying with court directives, difficulty in tracking and identifying the assets belonging to the Judgment Debtor, asset dissipation, concealment, or transfer by the judgment debtor.

CONCLUSION

The three mechanisms examined in this article collectively constitute the principal framework for enforcing monetary judgments under Nigerian law. Each is distinct in its target and procedure, yet all three share a common purpose: to ensure that the judgment creditor receives the relief the court has granted. That purpose, however, is too often defeated in practice. For a significant number of successful litigants in Nigeria, the judgment of the court marks not the end of their legal ordeal, but the beginning of a new one.

The maxim interesse rei publicae ut sit finis litium demands not merely an end to litigation, but an end that is meaningful. Until deliberate reforms are directed at the legislative and institutional obstacles identified in this article, the right to enforce a judgment in Nigeria will remain, for many, more theoretical than a reality.

---

[1] [2017] LPELR-42368 (SC)

[2] O. Faniyi, ‘Understanding Garnishee Proceedings in Nigeria’, < https://www.trustedadvisorslaw.com/insights/understanding-garnishee-proceedings-in-nigeria-2 > accessed on 10^th June 2026.

[3] Outside the notice or knowledge of the other party

[4] Sheriff and Civil Processes Act (SCPA) Cap. S6, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria (LFN), 2004, s.83 (1)

[5] Ibid. 84

[6] Cap. S6, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria (LFN), 2004

[7] Cap S6, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004. See also Sections 44 and 46 of the Sheriff and Civil Processes Act to the effect that where the moveable property of the judgment debtor is not sufficient to satisfy the judgment debt, the judgment creditor can seek the leave of the court upon notice of the judgment debtor to attach the immovable property of the judgment debtor.

[8] ibid

[9] ibid, Section 58.

[10] ibid, SS. 66, 67.

[11] 21 O. Shasore SAN and B. Salihu, (2020) Enforcement of Judgements, Global Practice Guide, P. 5. < https://www.alp.company/sites/default/files/Enforcement%20of%20Judgment%20in%20Nigeria%20-%20Chambers%20Edition.pdf > accessed on 14^th June, 2026.

Written by Chibeyim Dave-Chinwo for The Trusted Advisors

Email us: info@trustedadvisorslaw.com

Telephone Number: +234 810 159 9159