ANUEYIAGU & ANOR, V. DEPUTY SHERIFF, KANO

• Pages: 36-39

36



NIGERIAN SUPREME COURT CASES

[1962] N.S.C.C.

ANUEYIAGU & ANOR. V. DEPUTY SHERIFF,

KANO

1.

C. ANUEYIAGU

2.

N. NWOF0

V

DEPUTY SHERIFF, KANO

APPELLANTS

RESPONDENT

SUIT NO. FSC 218/1961

FEDERAL SUPREME COURT

ADEMOLA,



F.J.F.

UNSWORTH,



F.J.

TAYLOR,



F.J.

19th January, 1962.

Civil Procedure - Parties - Deputy Sheriff - Officer entitled to claim on bond

under Section 32 Sheriffs and Civil Process Act Cap. 205 (1948 Edition).

Legislation - Interpretation - Petitions of Right Cap. 167 (1948 Edition) Section 2

- Bonds given under statutory provisions must be read subject to such

provisions - Liability for loss or Diminution in value of goods only and not

absolute for sum expressed - Sheriff has no authority to take a bond for

release of goods subject to attachment except in accordance with provisions of

relevant statute.

Damages - Measure of

ISSUES:

1.

Whether a Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff can prosecute a claim in his official capacity.

2.

Whether a bond signed pending the outcome of interpleader proceedings

imposes an absolute liability or is just security against loss or depreciation in

value of the goods held.

FACTS:

The Respondent seized a lorry in execution of a judgment debt. A 3rd party

claimed ownership of the lorry, whereupon the Respondent brought interpleader

proceedings. Pending the outcome of the proceedings, he released the lorry to

the claimant upon a bond being given to him.

The appellants sureties were jointly and severally bound to the Respondent in

the sum of £700. Subject to defeasance by successful prosecution of the claim-

ant's claim in the interpleader proceedings, as provided by Sections 32(1)(b) and

32(2) of the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act Cap. 205 (1948 Edition).

The claimant failed to establish the claim on the interpleader proceedings and

returned the lorry to the Respondent who refused to accept it and claimed the

£700 under the bond.

Appellant contended inter alia that the claim for the enforcement of the bond

could not be brought in the name of the Deputy Sheriff and that the bond was

merely a security against loss or depreciation in the value of the property pend-

ing determination of the interpleader proceedings.