United Bank for Africa Plc. & Anor V . M. A. Lawal (2007)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

JOHN INYANG OKORO, J.C.A.

The dispute in this appeal which arose from the judgment of Adeniran J. of Oyo State High Court sitting at Ibadan and delivered on 13-8-99 is for the determination of whether a customer of a bank having, on his own volition stopped operating his account, the bank is right to continue in charging interest on the said account during the period the account remained dormant.

The Plaintiff now Respondent claimed against the appellant as follows:-

(i) Declaration that the threatened sale by Public Auction of the properties of the Plaintiff situate lying and being at SWQ/200 Orita Sangotedo, Odo-Ona Elewe Road, Ibadan and referred to in the mortgage Deed registered as No.11 at page 11 in volume 2491 of the Lands Registry in the office at Ibadan and the plaintiffs landed property situate in any other place in Nigeria by the 2nd defendant at the instance of the 1st defendant is unreasonable, irregular, unlawful and should be stopped.

(ii) Declaration that the Property and conveyance Law Cap 99 of Oyo State of Nigeria to the extent that it provides or confers or vests a Mortgage with powers of sale, is inconsistent with the provisions of the Land Use Act and therefore unconstitutional ultra vires, null and void and of no legal effect.

(iii) Declaration that the Deed of Mortgage between the Plaintiff and the 1st defendant and registered as No. 11 page 11 in volume 2491 of the Lands Registry in the office at Ibadan to the extent that it provides or confers or vests the 1st defendant with power to sell the Mortgagee property at Ibadan and Offa is invalid, unenforceable, illegal, null and void and of no effect.

(iv) Declaration that the plaintiff is not indebted to the 1st defendant in the sum of N1,156,709.09k or at all.

(v) An order for comprehensive account of the plaintiffs monies lodged with the 1st defendant on account No. 6426 at the 1st defendants Jubilee Market Street Branch otherwise known as Ibadan Main Branch, Oyo state of Nigeria.

(vi) An order of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants particularly the 1st defendant whether by itself, its servants, workmen, agents, and/or privies and indeed anybody acting on its instructions from selling or advertising for sale by public auction and or by private treaty or interfering in anyway with the plaintiffs quiet possession and enjoyment of his property both at SWQ/200 Orita Sangotedo Ibadan or in any other place in Nigeria.

In the statement of defence filed by t he Appellants, paragraph 9-20 contain the counter claim of the appellants. Paragraph 20 of the statement of defence and counter claim reads:-

“Whereof the 1st defendant seeks judgment in the sum of N3,233,691:33 together with interest at 21% from the time of filling the suit till judgment and 6% from the time of judgment till execution of the judgment OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, order of court to sell the mortgaged properties in accordance with the appropriate laws”.

The Respondent thereafter filed defence to counter claim basically denying the counter claim.

The facts of this case as presented by each party at the trial are briefly put as follows:- The Respondent is a customer of the ISI appellant bank. On 6th May, 1982 the 1st appellant granted loan to the respondent to the tune of N200,000.00 and an additional facility of N100,000.00 in 1985 making it a total of N300,000.00. The Respondent who was the plaintiff at the lower court states that the 1st loan attracted 7.5% interest while the one of 1985 attracted 14% interest rate. For the two facilities, he placed two of his properties, one at Orita Challenge, Ibadan and the other at Ipee Road Offa as security for the loan. He said he had liquidated the first loan leaving the N100,000.00 as outstanding. That it is interest on the N100,000.00 that has escalated to N3,233,691.33. He denies owing the appellant such an amount. However under cross examination he admitted on p.111 of the record that interest rate on the 1st loan was 14%.

The only witness called by the 1st appellant testified that after both facilities were granted the Respondent, he was making payments and withdrawals and as at 13th June 1983, the appellant was owing the sum of N240,792.36 wherein Exhibit D- letter of demand was written and served on him. That the Respondent admitted this through Exhibit E written by him.