• Why court victories mean little to many citizens
Many litigants have had to endure the hidden crisis and the broken chain of judgment enforcement in Nigeria. After going through the torturous journey of court victory, the real frustration begins: the elusive fruit of a favourable judgment. From corruption and bureaucracy to government impunity, JOSEPH JIBUEZE examines why enforcing judgments remains one of the justice system’s weakest links.
In Nigeria’s justice system, winning a case after many years in court is often the easy part. Enforcing the judgment is the real tough nut.
Across the country, thousands of court judgments, some against private companies, others against government agencies, sit unenforced, trapped in a legal limbo where victory brings no relief and court orders command no obedience.
“Court orders are not respected in Nigeria. This is one pain I live with as a legal practitioner in this country,” said activist-lawyer Festus Ogun.
From commercial disputes to labour cases, from compensation awards to fundamental rights enforcement, litigants routinely discover that the law’s authority ends where enforcement begins.
Former Vice President Yemi Osinbajo (SAN) captured the frustrations: “Often, judgment creditors will abandon enforcement because of the high cost and low success rate…”
The consequences are devastating. Families bankrupted by prolonged litigation find that their “victory” cannot pay hospital bills or school fees.
Businesses that survive years in court collapse while waiting for judgments to be honoured.
For many, the failure of enforcement is not just a legal problem; it is an economic sentence.
Lawyers describe the process as a maze deliberately designed to exhaust claimants. Court registries delay the issuance of enforcement documents. Sheriffs demand unofficial fees.
Police officers refuse to act without “clear directives.” Government agencies invoke bureaucracy, budgetary constraints, or outright silence.
In some cases, enforcement is treated not as a right flowing from judgment, but as a favour to be negotiated.
Unpalatable experience
In 2005, a governor in a Northcentral state sent teachers back to their states of origin.
The teachers briefed Jibrin Okutepa (SAN) to challenge the action.
On February 18, 2008, judgment was delivered in favour of the teachers.
The court ordered that they be reinstated and their salaries and allowances be paid to them.
Okutepa said: “From 2008 to date, the state government is yet to obey the judgment.
“Under the law, these people have the right to enforce the judgment. We have been trying to do so on their behalf since, but we have met one legal antics or another, all being employed by lawyers.
“We have been facing obstacles deliberately put in place by lawyers who have allowed themselves to be used as instruments to obstruct the course of justice.”
Other lawyers cry out
Even the outcomes of arbitration, considered a preferred alternative to litigation, are far from certain.
A Senior Advocate of Nigeria/Queen’s Counsel, Prof. Fidelis Oditah, has been trying since 2011 to enforce an arbitral award in the case of AIHL vs Meridien.
The enforcement was challenged all the way to the Supreme Court.
“As we got a bailiff to execute judgment, the judgment debtor brought fresh proceedings in 2023 to restrain enforcement.
“That proceeding has not been argued. Since June 2025, there have been six adjournments.
“No system can function like that or serve public interest if it is this ineffective,” Oditah regretted.
A lawyer, Mr Afam Nwokedi, faulted the ugly practice of disobeying judgments by some agencies of government.
He recalled that he was yet to get the benefits of a judgment his client got against the Nigerian National Petroleum Company Limited.
He said NNPC was yet to comply with a 2019 Supreme Court judgment, alleging that a petroleum tanker and other items ordered to be returned to his clients have not only been withheld but have now gone missing.
Nwokedi was referring to the Supreme Court’s decision in Suit SC/167/12, between the Federal Government of Nigeria (FGN) and Jamiu Adeniyi & five others, delivered on February 21, 2019.
The case arose from the prosecution of the defendants for alleged vandalisation of an NNPC pipeline and illegal procurement of Premium Motor Spirit (PMS).
Five of the six defendants were initially convicted by the Federal High Court, Ilorin Division.
Following the conviction, the trial court ordered that a Mac tanker with registration number XC 338 JJT, N3.35 million, and 17,000 litres of petrol tendered as exhibits be deposited at the Ilorin Depot of the NNPC and held in the custody of the Federal Government.
However, the Court of Appeal later set aside the conviction, discharged and acquitted the defendants, and ordered the NNPC to return all seized items to them.
Dissatisfied, the Federal Government appealed to the Supreme Court, but the apex court unanimously dismissed the appeal, affirming the Court of Appeal’s judgment and again directing NNPC to release the properties.
Nwokedi said: “Despite the clear and unambiguous order of the Supreme Court, NNPC has refused to comply since 2019.”
Several formal requests by his firm, Stillwaters Law Firm, have been ignored, he lamented.
He further alleged that investigations revealed the brand-new tanker had disappeared from the Ilorin depot, accusing the oil company of deliberately frustrating the enforcement of the judgment.
“NNPC has chosen to play the ostrich game, hoping the demand for compliance will simply fade away,” he said.
According to Nwokedi, the affected clients have now instructed their lawyers to initiate a fresh action for damages and commence contempt proceedings against the leadership of NNPC Ltd, the Nigerian Pipelines and Storage Company (NPSC), and other relevant affiliates.
“The rule of law demands obedience to court judgments. No institution is above the law,” he said.
According to him, the government itself has benefited from Supreme Court judgments, so it is wrong for its agencies not to comply with decisions of the highest court in the land.
How judgment enforcement is frustrated
A legal expert, Dr Emmanuel Sani, who has been involved in many judgment enforcement actions, identified deep-seated legal, institutional, and political obstacles that undermine the process.
He warned that many litigants still end up with “paper victories” long after securing favourable rulings from the courts.
Sani said enforcement becomes most problematic once the judgment debtor is a government body, particularly agencies under the executive arm.
“The most difficult aspect of it is where you get judgment against government entities, or a specific arm of government itself,” he said.
According to him, matters involving the military, police and paramilitary agencies are especially challenging because conventional enforcement mechanisms are largely ineffective against security institutions.
“When you are dealing with the executive arm of government, specifically the military, the police, or other paramilitary institutions, enforcement becomes almost impossible,” Sani noted.
He explained that although the law provides several methods for enforcing judgments, including writs of fieri facias (fi fa), writs of possession, and garnishee proceedings, these mechanisms often fail in practice when applied to security agencies.
Citing a case in which his client obtained a judgment against the Nigerian Navy for breach of fundamental rights, Sani questioned how such judgments could realistically be enforced.
“How will you go and fi fa the property of the Navy, which are very critical security infrastructures?” he asked.
He further illustrated the impracticality of deploying enforcement officers to military installations.
“Will you carry policemen to go to Nigeria Navy headquarters to attach either a tank, a building or stationery?” he queried.
According to him, court sheriffs lack the independent capacity to enforce judgments and must rely on the police for protection, creating a structural contradiction.
“The court has no specialised armed guard. You still have to resort to the police,” he said.
Judgments involving land or property recovery fare no better when government agencies are involved.
Sani noted that writs of possession, which are ordinarily effective against private individuals, are rarely enforceable against government bodies.
“The writ of possession is practically impossible when you are dealing with even a government agency,” he stated.
Secrecy surrounding government accounts
Garnishee proceedings, regarded as one of the most effective enforcement tools, are also frustrated by secrecy, particularly where government finances are concerned.
“The challenge is how do you even get the account number or know the banker of a government agency?” Sani asked.
He said government institutions often operate multiple accounts across different banks, shielded by administrative secrecy.
“There are multiple accounts and too much secrecy around these things, even in the civil service,” he explained.
Sani accused some banks of actively frustrating enforcement processes, especially when powerful corporate or government clients are involved.
“The bank would rather protect its customer, especially if it’s a corporate customer,” he said.
He alleged that banks sometimes hide accounts with substantial funds while declaring dormant or low-value accounts to the court.
In some cases, he said, banks even tip off judgment debtors.
“They even inform the company and say, ‘this is what to do,’” Sani alleged.
“There is the secrecy of accounts and the paradox of bankers’ duty of confidentiality to their customers and the duty of disclosure imposed by law in a garnishee proceeding.
“There are instances where a corporate body and a public institution outrightly close all their accounts with their bankers after such disclosure.”
Attorney-General’s consent as a bottleneck
Another major obstacle, according to Sani, is the statutory requirement for the consent of the Attorney-General before enforcing judgments against government entities.
“You need his discretion for consent on whether or not to enforce. Of course, he will not likely give you consent to enforce against the government he represents,” Sani said.
Although he acknowledged a recent Supreme Court decision that weakened the requirement, Sani said uncertainty remains.
“It stands as the law, but still, it doesn’t show some degree of clarity,” he noted.
Citing the case of CBN v Ochofe (2025) LPELR-80220 (SC), Sani said: “The Supreme Court upheld the requirements for the consent of the Attorney-General before funds of a public body can be attached.
“However, it considers it a mere procedural requirement. In effect, if it is not raised timeously, it may be deemed waived.
“That was the position of the majority of the panel. However, one of the justices in his minority decision considered the provision of Section 87 of the Sheriff and Civil Process Act – the requirement for prior consent of the A-G – as unconstitutional.”
TSA and central bank hurdles
The Treasury Single Account (TSA) policy has added another layer of difficulty.
Agencies operating under the TSA keep their funds with the Central Bank of Nigeria, rather than commercial banks.
“You cannot go to a commercial bank because of a single treasury. You will have to go to the Central Bank,” Sani explained.
He described enforcement through the CBN as a near-impossible task.
“That is another Herculean task, except you have insiders,” he said.
Fraud and insider abuse
Sani also recounted instances of fraudulent enforcement attempts driven by insider information, including efforts to enforce expired judgments.
Such abuses, he said, further complicate genuine enforcement efforts and undermine trust in the system.
“Government officials often demand that the judgment debtor part with as much as 50 per cent of the judgment sum to ensure payment, or they will frustrate every voluntary compliance effort,” he said.
Culture of non-compliance
Beyond legal and procedural challenges, Sani identified a lack of voluntary compliance as the underlying problem.
“The bigger problem is compliance – voluntary compliance,” he said.
While private companies often negotiate once their accounts are frozen, he said, government agencies typically ignore correspondence until enforcement becomes unavoidable.
“You would write and write and write, nobody answers you,” he lamented.
Appeals as a bane to judgment enforcement
Legal practitioner and arbitrator, Bolaji Adeoye, raised concerns about how the appeal process in Nigeria is often abused to frustrate the enforcement of court judgments.
He said: “The most difficult part of enforcement of court judgments has been the appeal process used as a decoy to frustrate and perpetually keep the judgment creditor from reaping the fruits of the hard-won judgment.”
Adeoye explained that this abuse is enabled by the constitutional right of appeal, allowing debtors to indefinitely delay payment.
“I have watched how judgments involving significant sums in commercial disputes continue to lie in the docket of the appellate courts,” he said.
Even attempts to enforce judgment through garnishee proceedings or other legal mechanisms are often thwarted because debtors can cite “the pendency of an appeal or an application for Stay of Execution or Injunction pending Appeal.”
He acknowledged reforms such as Order 4 Rule 6 of the Court of Appeal Rules 2021, Order 6 Rule 3(5) of the Supreme Court Rules 2024, and Section 55 of the Arbitration and Mediation Act 2023, which introduce stricter measures for enforcement and arbitral awards.
However, he noted widespread non-compliance: “Most judgment debtors do not honour this provision,” which requires payment into a court-controlled account or provision of a bond to obtain a stay of execution.
Adeoye further highlighted that administrative delays exacerbate the problem.
“Appeals constitute a perfect strategy for frustrating enforcement of judgment in Nigeria because even if there is no formal order of stay of execution in place, a law-abiding judgment creditor will not proceed to enforce judgment in deference to the Court.”
He also criticised slow prosecution by appellants, stating: “It is not uncommon to find that many judgment creditors dying during appeals,” as courts adjourn matters for procedural reasons, effectively prolonging the process.
Grim statistics
There is no centralised national success rate statistic for judgment enforcement in Nigeria, but available data points to relatively low enforcement in practice, especially in international/regional cases.
Broader legal environment indicators suggest slow, costly enforcement procedures, which generally correlate with lower effective enforcement outcomes.
For instance, Nigeria has the highest number of unenforced judgments from the ECOWAS Court of Justice in Africa.
The Court’s Deputy Chief Registrar, Gaye Sowe, who presented enforcement statistics for the region, said many member states have a long record of not complying with court decisions, but Nigeria has the biggest backlog.
According to Sowe, Nigeria has 125 cases in total. Out of these, 67 were dismissed, 10 have been enforced, and 48 are still not enforced.
He added that the number of unenforced cases is now about 50.
Sowe also explained that the Court has delivered 492 judgments across the 12 active ECOWAS member states, and 192 of them were classified as enforceable.
A rough implication from the ECOWAS context is that if these figures are representative, enforcement might be less than 10 per cent for those specific regional court judgments, though this is not a general domestic enforcement rate.
The World Bank’s Ease of Doing Business rankings consistently place Nigeria among the lowest-ranked countries, partly due to the difficulties in enforcing contracts and resolving commercial disputes through the judicial system.
It says the average cost of enforcing a contract is relatively high, close to 39 per cent of the claim’s value, which can be a significant barrier for businesses, especially domestic SMEs.
Economic implications
According to Prof Oditah, the commercial implications of judicial delay are particularly severe for small and medium-sized enterprises, which lack the financial resources to sustain prolonged litigation.
He added: “For these businesses, legal disputes over contracts, debts, or property rights can become existential threats when resolution takes years rather than months.
“The resulting economic distortion privileges large corporations with greater litigation capacity while stifling the entrepreneurial activity that drives inclusive growth.
“The economic costs of judicial gridlock in socio-economic matters thus represent both an immediate business constraint and a long-term development challenge.
“Justice delayed is justice denied and encourages self-help.”
Prof. Oditah pointed out that economically, the situation harms investment and impedes economic development.
“If disputes are unresolved for decades, it means that a key ingredient of the rule of law is missing. The consequence is flight of investment, loss of revenue, unemployment, etc
“The gridlock also creates weak and unaccountable institutions, which undermine our democracy.
“Every one of us is familiar with the mantra ‘Go to Court’, because there is no expectation that justice can be obtained from the courts,” Oditah said.
Osinbajo proposes way out
Prof. Osinbajo believes the problem can be solved.
He said: “Often, judgment creditors will abandon enforcement because of the high cost and the low success rate of the post-judgment process of identifying and seizing judgment assets. And that’s a problem.
“What’s the point of going through a whole legal process, an involved legal process? And at the end of the day, you can’t enforce judgment.
“Government debts, of course, are even more notoriously difficult to enforce, especially with the mandatory requirement of the Attorney-General’s consent before initiating garnishing proceedings to enforce a monetary judgment…
“I believe that we can do more, generally speaking, to reform the failing system of enforcement of judgments.
“The first is to remove the obstacles to enforcement. Reduced judicial discretion or automatic or default enforcement mechanisms is perhaps one of the ways that we can do this.
“For instance, in the U.S., federal and in many states, once a judgment is entered, execution and garnishments are available without further judicial approval in most cases.
“So, once you have the judgment entered, it’s almost self-executing from there on.
“In Singapore, once judgment has been given, judgment is the final step. There’s no longer any judicial interference in the process.
“The Singapore Supreme Court is said to be one of the most efficient in this respect. They have the sheriff of the Supreme Court who controls and supervises all specialised enforcement officers.
“This centralised and professionalised system is one reason why domestic judgments in Singapore are considered to be some of the most efficient.
“I think effective enforcement is a function of executive will. Where executive will is lacking, effective enforcement will also be lacking.
“The executive branch must see enforcement as a priority. The constitution clearly makes the enforcement of laws, including the judgment of the courts, the responsibility of the executive.
“I will suggest the establishment by law of a well-trained and armed judgment enforcement corps to replace bailiffs.
“The law should contain clear operational guidelines, autonomy to act without interference from the police, from security agencies or the military or other armed services, so that this is an enforcement force by itself.
“See, if you cannot enforce judgments of the court, you can’t really speak of justice.”
Okutepa: political will needed
Okutepa reinforced the need for political will.
He said: “There is an urgent need to address the frustrations in enforcing judgments in Nigeria.
“The relevant authorities must address the frustrating antics of some lawyers to the enforcement of judgments in Nigeria, particularly lawyers working with the government, and for the government who employ all manner of antics to ensure that judgments of courts are deliberately not enforced.
“They use all manner of deliberate deception in practice, including filing frivolous applications in the courts to undermine the enforcement of judgments.
“The Nigerian Bar Association, the Body of Benchers, the General Council of the Bar, the Body of Senior Advocates of Nigeria and of course the relevant legal and professional bodies need to urgently see to it that judgments creditors in Nigeria enjoy the fruits of their judgments without any further obstacles and obstruction by legalistic antics by lawyers that are not rooted in the best interest of justice.
“This is my appeal. Nigerians do not get immediate remedies under the current justice system.”
Whether those who benefit from the system will want a change remains to be seen.
A former NBA President, Olumide Akpata, expressed such fears, warning that reform would be difficult without strong executive leadership.
He expressed concern that beneficiaries of a broken system may resist change.
“We’re in a catch-22 situation,” Akpata said, describing a paradox where reform is needed but blocked by those who benefit from dysfunction.
A lawmaker’s move to intervene
A senator representing Lagos West, Dr Idiat Oluranti Adebule, is pushing for a sweeping amendment of Nigeria’s Sheriff and Civil Process Act, describing the 1945 law as grossly outdated and unfit for a modern, digital justice system.
Adebule said the Act is “manifestly outdated” and “disconnected from present realities,” noting that it was enacted during colonial rule and has remained largely unchanged despite advances in technology and legal practice.
She highlighted absurd provisions such as a clause prescribing 45 kobo as a monthly allowance for debtor prisoners, calling it a stark symbol of how obsolete the law has become.
Adebule stressed the need to align the justice system with digital reforms already adopted by courts, including e-filing and electronic service of processes, which currently lack firm statutory backing.
“This amendment will bridge that gap and align our legislation with the realities of the digital economy,” she said.
A major focus of her argument was the difficulty of enforcing judgments against government agencies.
Under the current law, monetary judgments cannot be enforced without the consent of the Attorney-General, a requirement she described as a serious barrier to justice.
“Judgment creditors find it exceedingly difficult to obtain such consent and often abandon their claims entirely. This defeats the purpose of judicial awards and encourages a culture of disobedience to court orders,” she warned.
She linked the issue to human rights standards, citing Article 8 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and cautioned: “When we create structures that make it nearly impossible to enforce judgments, we violate this right.”
The bill also proposes reforms to modernise the role and operations of court sheriffs, addressing long-standing complaints of inefficiency and inconsistency.
According to Adebule, the reform is essential to restoring confidence in the judiciary. “This amendment is not just a legal adjustment; it is part of rebuilding trust in our institutions,” she said.
Lawmakers broadly backed the proposal, with Deputy Senate President Barau Jibrin describing the arguments as compelling and referring the bill to the Judiciary Committee for further consideration.
Lawyer proffers other solutions
Legal expert Dr Sani believes one of the major problems that hinders prompt compliance by public institutions of government agencies is the fact that there are no budgetary provisions for such contingencies.
He suggested: “A repository and registry of judgment should be created and administered by the relevant offices of the Attorney General.
“The registry should be saddled with the responsibility of creating a system of registration and authentication of valid judgments against government and public institutions, and also create a structured and self-auditing system of compliance in coordination with the relevant ministry of finance for every fiscal year.
“Payments of judgment debts should then be made within the budgetary provision or framework, having regard to the priority of claims and the limitations period for each judgment.
“Such an administrative system sanctioned by statute will effectively cure the mischief that the requirement of Attorney-General’s consent under the extant dispensation seeks to prevent.
“The Sheriff and Civil Process Act should be amended in clear terms by removing the apparent unconstitutional provision for Attorney-General’s consent.
“The provision should be supplanted with a new provision that creates an Administrative procedure.”
Fed Govt commits to reform
Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Prince Lateef Fagbemi (SAN), acknowledged the challenges, promising that the Federal Government would implement the needed reforms initiated by his ministry.
“Public trust in the justice system is central to the existence of the legal profession. Without trust, the system cannot function, and the work we do loses meaning,” he admitted.
Acknowledging the pressures facing the justice system, the Attorney-General identified structural weaknesses, gaps in process, capacity and funding, as well as behavioural.
“Under the leadership of President Bola Tinubu, the Federal Government has prioritised the strengthening of the justice sector as part of the Renewed Hope Agenda,” Fagbemi said.
While Fagbemi publicly affirms the importance of enforcing judgments and upholding the rule of law, civil society pressure has highlighted perceived gaps between rhetoric and practice, especially where judgment enforcement implicates government interests.
Enforcement remains a key litmus test for his role as Chief Law Officer of the Federation.
