Union Bank of Nigeria Limited V. Madam Hawawu Salami (1998)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

MUHAMMAD, J.C.A, 

The appellant as plaintiff at the High Court of Justice, Ilorin Kwara State, is a Banking Institution duly incorporated under the Laws of the Federation. The respondent as defendant was a customer to the bank. Sometimes in 1981, the respondent applied for a short term loan and overdraft in the sum of N9,000.00 from the Ilorin Branch of the appellant. The loan was approved and granted to the respondent. The loan was to be repaid within a short term. There was failure from the respondent to effect repayment within the period agreed despite repeated demands by the appellants.

The appellant took a specially indorsed writ wherein it makes the following claims:-

“The plaintiffs claim is for the sum of N33,085.33k (Thirty three thousand eighty-five naira and thirty three kobo) being the amount outstanding as debit in the defendant’s account with the plaintiff as at close of business on 11/2/91 arising from loan and overdraft facilities extended to the defendant in 1981 at the Ilorin Branch office and which said amount the defendant has acknowledged as at May, 1991 but refused to complete full payment despite repeated demands.

The plaintiff’s claims (sic) interest on the said sum of 25% up till December, 1990 and thereafter 21% from January, 1991 till May, 1991 and again 10% from the date of filing this action till the final liquidation.”

The writ was filed under the undefended list procedure. It was however later transferred to the ‘General Cause List’. After taking evidence from both parties, the learned trial Judge dismissed the appellant’s claim except in respect of the sum of N7, 750.00 which he found to be the balance outstanding.

The appellant was aggrieved with the decision and it appealed to this court by filing a notice of appeal containing three grounds of appeal.

In compliance with the requirement of Order 6 rule 2(2) of the Court of Appeal Rules, 1984 (as amended) the parties filed and exchanged briefs of argument. The appellant formulated the following issue for determination:

“whether the Honourable trial Judge was right when he refused to award interest on the over-draft received by the respondent.”

The respondent adopted the issue formulated by the appellant.

On the hearing date, learned counsel for the appellant adopted and relied on his brief of argument. He had nothing new to add. He urged the court to allow the appeal. Learned counsel for the respondent adopted his brief and urged the court to dismiss the appeal.

It is the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that it was certain that the respondent had borrowed money from the appellant and that she overdrew her account to the tune of N5,206.86k as at the 1st day of September, 1982. He submitted that banks in Nigeria have right to charge interest on loans or overdrafts they advanced to their customers without the consent of the customers. In this regard, learned counsel submitted that the decision of the learned trial Judge was faulty. On interest from date of writ to the date of judgment, learned counsel submitted that a court giving judgment for any debt or damages has power to include interest from the date of the writ to the date of judgment. He submitted further that the trial Judge ought to have awarded interest on the Judgment sum as provided by Order 40 rule 7 of the Kwara State High Court Civil Procedure Rules, 1989. Learned counsel urged this court to hold that the judgment debtor is liable to pay the rates of various interest specified and claimed in both the writ of summons and the statement of claim. He also urged us to allow the appeal.

In his argument learned counsel for the respondent submitted that there was no dispute that the respondent overdrew her account with the appellant and that Exhibit 8 was admitted in evidence without objection. He contended however, that mere admission of Exhibit 8 was not sufficient to prove the appellant’s case.

Further, the appellants’ witness had failed to explain any of the various entries or figures contained in Exhibit 8. He supported this argument by citing Aromolaran v. Kupoluyi (1994) 2 NWLR (Pt. 325) 221 at 227.