African International Bank Limited V. Purification Techniques (Nigeria) Limited & Anor (2000)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

GALADIMA, J.C.A.

This is an interlocutory appeal against the decision of Adeniji J. of the Lagos State High Court delivered on 30/4/93 refusing to dismiss the plaintiff’s action on the grounds that the latter action was not caught by the plea of issue estoppel as the issue of fraud had not been pleaded and tried in the previous action.

The facts giving rise to the appeal stem from an action filed by the first respondent in 1988 against the appellant in Suit No. LD/1125/88. The claims against the appellant were as follows:

“(a) An order directing an account to be taken of all banking transactions between the plaintiff and the defendant.
(b) Payment over by either party to the other of whatever sum may be found due after taking such account.

The appellant who was the defendant in the earlier case filed a statement of defence whereby it relied on the defence that there was an account stated and settled between the parties pursuant to a letter of 31/12/86.

Evidence was led by both sides on the issues raised and on the 26/7/86 Famakinwa J. delivered judgment whereby he upheld the plea of the appellant Bank that there was an account stated and settled between the parties which made it inexpedient to reopen the transaction between the parties. He consequently dismissed the respondents’ case. They immediately appealed against the judgment. That appeal is now pending before this Court of Appeal No. CA/L/90/93.

The respondents, had as well however, filed another action in 1991 against the appellant Bank in Suit No. LD/1603/91 in respect of Account No. 01005016 which is the same as adjudicated upon in Suit No. LD/1125/88. The respondents were claiming, inter alia:

“(i) An order setting aside any account stated and consequently the judgment in Suit No. LD/1125/88 based on the account stated between the plaintiff and 1st defendant with respect to the operation of Account No. 01005016 on the ground of fraud and/or misrepresentation.
(ii) A declaration that the plaintiff is only indebted to the defendant in the sum of N1,009,818.73 (One Million Nine Thousand, Eight Hundred and Eighteen Naira, Seventy Three Kobo) as at 25th May, 1988 when the external guarantee was called in to liquidate plaintiff’s indebtedness with respect to Account No. 01005016.”

The appellant filed a statement of defence in opposition to the claim and subsequently brought an application in the lower court seeking a dismissal of the action on the grounds that it was frivolous, vexatious and tantamount to an abuse of the process of the court as the issues being raised were one and the same with those which had been comprehensively and conclusively dealt with in the judgment of Famakinwa J. in Suit No. LD/1125/88.

In his Ruling, Adeniji J. as already observed, refused to dismiss the plaintiff’s action on the grounds stated above. It is that Ruling which is the subject-matter of this appeal by the appellant.

Four grounds of appeal without the particulars are as follows:

“(i) The learned trial Judge erred in law in holding that a plea of cause of action estoppel was not available to the defendant/appellant in this case as the issue of fraud had not been raised in the earlier Suit No. LD/1125/88.

(ii) The learned trial Judge erred in law in holding that the plaintiff could relitigate on the issue of fraud when the plaintiff’s averment in its further amended statement of claim was not that the judgment in the earlier Suit No. LD/1125/88 was obtained through fraud being practiced on the court.

(iii) The learned trial Judge misdirected himself on the facts in holding that the issue of fraud was not raised in the Suit No. LD/1125/88 when the claim in the earlier Suit was all-encompassing of the plaintiff’s claims against the defendant/appellant as regards Account No. 01005016.