Amsel Limited & Anor V. Union Bank Of Nigeria PLC (2017)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

FREDERICK OZIAKPONO OHO, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

This is an appeal against the Judgment of the High Court of Lagos State presided over by the K. A. JOSE, J and delivered on the 27th day of March, 2014 wherein the Court gave judgment in favour of the Respondent who was Defendant at the Court below. The Appellant as Claimant, by a writ of summons filed on the 19-5-2009 claimed against Respondent the following Reliefs;

WHEREFORE;

(a) A declaration that the Defendant’s refusal to remove the credit risk management report in order to enable Oceanic Bank Plc to refinance the Claimants indebtedness to the Defendant was unlawful and in bad faith and was intended to clog the Claimants equity of redemption.

(b) A declaration that the Defendant has no right in law to continue to clog the Claimant’s equity of redemption by continuing to frustrate the Claimant’s effort to get other Banks to refinance the Claimants’ indebtedness to the Defendant.

(c) A declaration that it is inequitable for the Defendant to frustrate Claimants’ efforts to get Oceanic Bank Plc to refinance the loan and then trial Court instead allowed

1

all the reliefs sought by the Respondent in proceed to foreclose the Claimant’s right to redeem mortgaged property.

(d) AN ORDER of the Hon. Court directing the Defendant to remove the negative surveillance report placed against the name of the 1st Claimant and on its account in order to allow Oceanic Bank International Plc or any other Bank to re-finance the Claimant’s financial Obligations to the Defendant.

(e) AN ORDER of injunction restraining the Defendant from unlawfully selling and or otherwise disposing of any of the Securities by which the mortgage was secured or in any manner whatsoever encumber the Claimant’s equity of redemption.

On the flip side of this action, it would be proper to disclose that the Respondent as Defendant also Counter-claimed against the Claimant vide an Amended Statement of Defence and Counter Claim dated the 1st February 2011, to wit;

(a) The sum of ?101,842,628.56 being the debt owed to the Counter-Claimant by the Defendant to the Counter-Claim by virtue of a loan facility granted by the Counter-Claimant to the 1st Defendant and guaranteed by the 2nd Defendant but which the Defendants to

2

the Counter-Claim failed to repay despite several demands by the Counter-Claimant.