Mainasara V. Fbn (2022)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

KUDIRAT MOTONMORI OLATOKUNBO KEKERE-EKUN, J.S.C. 

The appellant herein, a businessman, was a customer of First Bank of Nig. Plc (the respondent herein), where he maintained a current account No.7862 with its Gusau Branch, Zamfara State. He contended that between 1982-1990 he made various lodgements worth “billions of naira” into the said account and the respondent refused or neglected to issue him with statements of account covering the periods aforesaid despite repeated demands. He also contended that statements issued to him covering the period 1991-1994 revealed serious fraud and misrepresentation by the respondent, which contributed to the downfall of his business.

​He instituted an action against the respondent at the High Court of Sokoto State, Gusau Division vide a Writ of Summons and Statement of Claim, which can be found at pages 1-2 and 8-9 of the record. The processes are undated. Pursuant to leave granted by the trial Court, he filed an Amended Writ of Summons and Amended Statement of Claim at pages 81-84 of the record. By paragraph 7 of the Amended Statement of claim, he sought the following reliefs against the respondent thus:

“7(a) A declaration that the Plaintiff, being the holder of Account No.7862 with the defendant, is entitled to his statement of account in the period stated above.

(b) An order directing the defendant to issue the plaintiff with the statement of account No. 7862 for the period covering 1982-1990.

(c) N300,000,000.00 (Three Hundred Million Naira) being damages for fraud and refusal to issue the Plaintiff with his statement of account as and when due.”

See also  Isong Akpan Udoebre V The State (2001) LLJR-SC

The respondent filed an Amended Statement of Defence pursuant to order of the trial Court made on 16th December 1997. It denied the appellant’s claim. It contended that all lodgments made into the appellant’s account were correctly recorded. It denied failing or refusing to issue statements of account to the appellant and denied the allegation of fraud and negligence.

At the trial, three witnesses testified for the appellant while the defence called two witnesses. In a considered judgment delivered on 10th November 1999, the learned trial Judge entered judgment in favour of the appellant as follows:

“Judgment is hereby entered in favour of the plaintiff as per subparagraph (c) of the said paragraph on general damages. The Court has considered the amount involved, the period of their relationship as well as the deliberate refusal of the defendant to issue the plaintiff with statement of account on this it is hereby ordered that the plaintiff is entitled (sic) for this defendant (sic) the sum of N500,000,000.00 as general damages plus N600.00 and the cost of this case fixed at N50,000.00”

​Being dissatisfied with the judgment, the respondent appealed to the Court below. He formulated 5 issues for determination, to wit:

“1. Whether the plaintiff has sufficiently proved the allegation of fraud given that this amounts to a crime and the standard of proof is beyond reasonable doubt.

  1. Whether the finding by the learned trial Judge that the Plaintiff had deposited the sum of N3,203 but only the sum of N2,603 was recorded leaving unrecorded the sum of N600 is supported by legal evidence before the Court.
  2. Whether the finding of the learned trial Judge that the defendant had failed or refused to provide the plaintiff with his statements of account and therefore acted negligently is supported by the evidence before the Court.
  3. Whether the judgment is not against the weight of evidence.
  4. Whether the award of damages of N500,000,000.00 in the circumstances is not manifestly excessive”
See also  Alhaji Karim Laguro & Anor. V. Honsu Toku (Bale Of Itoga) & Anor. (1992) LLJR-SC

The Court, in a considered judgment found the appeal to be meritorious. The appeal was allowed. The judgment of Mika’ilu, J. was set aside and the appellant’s suit No. SS/95/96 was dismissed.

The appellant is dissatisfied with the judgment and has appealed to this Court vide his Amended Notice of Appeal dated 5/9/2021 and deemed filed on 20/9/2021. It contains 5 Grounds of Appeal. The respondent filed a Notice of Preliminary Objection on 16/1/2021 challenging the competence of the appeal. The parties duly exchanged their respective briefs of argument.

At the hearing of the appeal on 20th September 2021, A.S. Abdulkadir Esq. adopted and relied on the Appellant’s Amended Brief of Argument and Reply Brief both filed on 13/9/2021 and deemed filed on 20/9/2021, in urging the Court to allow the appeal.

Membership Required

You must be a member to access this content.

View Membership Levels

Already a member? Log in here

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *