Facts:

Facts:

The appellant obtained a judgment against the respondents and commenced garnishee proceedings at the Federal High Court, Lagos Division against the 1st respondent’s accounts in about twenty two banks. The court granted the order nisi by ordering the garnishees to show cause and each of the banks filed affidavit to show cause. However, the 1st respondent filed an application challenging the grant of order nisi and asking the court to set it aside on the ground that the funds in the accounts attached were under the control of a public officer in its official capacity and that consent of the Attorney General was required before such proceeding could be commenced. The 1st respondent contended that the failure of the appellant to seek and obtain the consent of the Attorney General before commencing garnishee proceeding was fatal and robbed the court of jurisdiction to hear and grant the order nisi. The appellant opposed the application stating that the consent of the Attorney General was not a condition precedent and that the court had jurisdiction to grant the order nisi. The 1st respondent filed its reply on points of law and after hearing the parties, the trial court ruled in favour of the 1st respondent and set aside the garnishee order nisi on the ground that it was a violation of section 84 of the Sheriff and Civil Process Act.

The appellant was aggrieved and filed a notice of appeal at the Court of Appeal, Lagos Division. The 1st and 2nd respondents however, filed a respondents notice urging the court to uphold the decision of the trial court on other grounds other than those relied on by the trial court. The sole issue for determination in the appeal is whether having regards to the findings of the court that monies in the hands of the garnishee banks are not in custody or under the control of the 1st respondent, the trial court was right to have set aside the garnishee order nisi in accordance with the provision of section 84 of the Sheriff and Civil Process Act.