FACTS
Relying on the case of SARAKI V. F.R.N. 3 NWLR 531 at 589-590; LPELR-40013 , appellant’s counsel submitted that SECTION 84 OF THE SHERIFFS AND CIVIL PROCESS ACT is very clear and unambiguous and that where as in the present case, the wordings of the statutes are clear and unambiguous, the Court has a duty to give the words used in the statute, their plain and ordinary meaning without more.
In this section, appropriate officer means – in relation to money which is in custody of a public officer who holds a public office in the service of the Federation, the Attorney-General of the Federation.” The Court referred to the letter of the Attorney-General wherein he replied thus: – “I am directed by the Honourable Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice to acknowledge the receipt of your letter on the above subject dated October 22, 2019” and stated that the 1st and 2nd respondents regarded same as the element of the Attorney-General’s consent, which given the circumstances of this case may dispense with express consent.