Union Bank Of Nigeria PLC V. Victor Olaitan Idowu & Anor (2016)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

MONICA BOLNA’AN DONGBAN-MENSEM, J.C.A.(Delivering the Leading Judgment)

The appeal challenges the Judgment of the High Court of Justice of the Ijebu-Ode Division, Ogun State coram Hon. O. A. Adesida delivered on 5/10/2007, in favour of the Plaintiff who is now the Respondent. The parties shall be referred to as the Appellants and Respondents respectively.

The grouse of the Appellant revolves around the claim of the 1st Respondent who was a former staff and retiree of the Appellant. The 1st Respondent purchased a treasury bill to the tune of 1.5 Million naira in value but no Treasury Bill Certificate was issued by the Appellant to the 1st Respondent.

The non-release/issuance of the certificate is alleged to have led to the premature termination of the investments of the 1st Respondent. The 1st Respondent claimed that the essence of the purchase of the Treasury Bill is to secure investments to the tune of 1.5 Million naira and that the non-release of the certificate had defeated the targeted investments. – (See pg. 6 of the records para 27-28 and pg. 118 the 1st Respondent cited for damages the loss of a business he was

1

negotiating and his inability to pay his children’s school fees which ran into arrears. The trial Court ordered a N2.5 million in general damages.

The Appellant has appealed against the order of damages.

Issues for determination:

The Appellant submits two issues for determination viz:

1. Whether or not the 1st Respondent is entitled to general damages against the Appellant for non-release of the Certificate of Treasury Bills purchased on behalf of the 1st Respondent by the Appellant on demand, which led to the 1st Respondent terminating the investment.

2. Whether or not this is a case where the Appellate Court should interfere to reverse the award.

The 1st Respondent adopts the issues raised by the Appellant. The two issues are argued together.

It is the submission of the Appellant that the learned trial Court did not pronounce the non-release of certificate as actually leading to the termination of the Appellants investment i.e. that the assertion was not resolved by the trial Court.

Maintains that the non-release was not intentional as reasons were adduced for such to be kept at the headquarters.Refers to Pg. 59 of