African Continental Bank Plc. V. Haston (Nigeria) Limited (1997)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

ACHIKE, J.C.A.

The plaintiff a private limited liability company operates, at all material times, a current account with the defendant bank at Calabar. Plaintiff’s case is, that as customer of defendant bank, and by means of certain forged cheques, its account was fraudulently debited with a total sum of N212.700.00. As a result of the defendant’s negligence, the plaintiff suffered in its trade and business and also injured as to its credit and has been unable to pay its creditors. Whereof the plaintiff claimed against the defendant as follows:

“(1) The Defendant is in breach of her duty to the Plaintiff by refusing to make available to her, her STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT and copies of the cheques and instruments drawn on the Account as demanded.

(2) The Defendant is in breach of her duty to the prevailing interest rate of 54% per annum from the date of withdrawal until judgment.

(3) N5 million being damages for breach of contract, negligence and loss of reputation.”

The defendant denied any forgery or fraudulent debiting of plaintiff’s account or any breach of contract and raised various legal defences which were rejected by the trial court.

At the conclusion of the hearing, the learned trial judge Effanga J (as he then was) found for the plaintiff and entered judgment in its favour as follows:

“(1) N212, 700.00 being money fraudulently withdrawn from the plaintiff’s Account No. 05604 as a result of the Defendant’s negligence and collusion.

(2) Interest on the principal calculated at the rate of 54% per annum from the date of withdrawal until judgment.

(3) N3.5 million being general damages for the breach of contract, negligence and loss of reputation. N1,000.00 as cost.”

Dissatisfied with the judgment defendant has appealed to this court, having filed nine grounds of appeal.

Chief U. N. Udechukwu SAN, learned counsel for the appellant formulated the following issues for determination:

“(1) Whether the Respondent’s Solicitor at the trial court could in fact be said to have failed to sign the plaintiffs amended statement of claim.

(2) Whether, if indeed the Solicitor did not so sign, or date the amended statement of claim, such a ground was sufficient, or even valid to reverse the decision of the trial court, having regard to the provision of the Cross River State Civil Procedure rules.