First City Monument Bank Limited v. Yusuf Sabitu (2025)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

JOSEPH OLUBUNMI KAYODE OYEWOLE, JCA (Delivering the leading judgment)

This is in respect of an appeal against the judgment of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja Judicial Division, sitting at Apo delivered on the 7th March, 2023 by Hon. Justice B. Dongoyaro, J.

The respondent, a customer of the appellant, discovered that he was unable to operate his account and later found out it was restricted by the appellant.

Efforts to get the appellant to lift the restriction failed to yield any positive outcome upon which he approached the lower court via an originating summons wherein he sought a determination of the following question:

Whether, the defendant is entitled to refuse to honour the claimant’s instructions in respect of the claimant’s account number 7743383017 maintained in the defendant’s bank since the 2nd of February, 2022 till date without any valid order of court of competent jurisdiction?

On the said question being answered in the negative, he sought the following reliefs:

1. A declaration of this honourable court that the actions of the defendant in preventing the claimant to operate his account since the 2nd of February, 2022 without any justifiable reason is a breach of the claimant’s right to own property, unconstitutional, unlawful, draconian, and a breach of the contractual banker-customer relationship existing between the claimant and the defendant.
2. An order of this honourable court directing the defendant to immediately lift the “post no debit” restriction placed on the claimant’s account Name: Yusuf Sabiitu with account number: 7743383017.
3. An order of this honourable court directing the defendant to pay the claimant the sum of twenty million naira (N20,000,000.00) only as exemplary damages for acting unlawfully in a draconian manner and in breach of the contractually banker-customer relationship existing between the claimant and the defendant.
4. An order of this honourablec directing the defendant to pay the claimant the sum of ten million naira (N10,000,000.00) only as general damages for acting unlawfully in a draconian manner and in breach of the contractual banker-customer relationship existing between the claimant and the defendant.
5. An order of this honorable court directing the defendant to pay the claimant the sum of one million, six hundred and five thousand naira (1,605,000.00) only as cost incurred by the claimant for legal service and litigating this suit.
6. And for such further orders(s) that this honourable court shall deem fit to make in the circumstances.

The appellant filed a counter-affidavit contesting liability on the ground that it traced proceeds of fraud to the respondent’s account upon which it placed restriction on the operation thereof. It was also argued that the action constituted an abuse of process in view of the pendency of an action at the Lagos High Court instituted by the appellant against the respondent and some others. The lower court was unimpressed by the appellant’s defence in its judgment delivered as aforesaid on 7th March, 2023, wherein judgment was given in favour of the respondent.

Dissatisfied, the appellant invoked the appellate jurisdiction of this court via a notice of appeal filed on 14th March, 2023, containing two grounds. At the hearing of the appeal, Mr. Aderibigbe adopted the appellant’s brief filed on 26th October, 2023 but deemed properly filed and served on the 26th March, 2025 as the arguments of the appellant in this appeal while Mr. Lawal adopted the respondent’s brief filed on the 24th November, 2023 but equally deemed properly filed and served on the 26th March, 2025 as the arguments of the respondent in contesting the appeal.

The appellant distilled two issues for determination which were adopted by the respondent. The two issues are as follows:

1. Whether or not the trial court was right to have awarded the excessive sum of N5,000,000.00 (Five million naira) as exemplary damages against the appellant when there is no evidence to show before the trial court that the respondent is entitled to same. (Distilled from ground 1).
2. Whether or not the trial court was right in its award of the sum of N1,605,000.00 (One million, six hundred and five thousand naira) as cost of litigation against the appellant. (Distilled from ground 2).

On the first issue, Mr. Aderibigbe submitted that the award of exemplary damages of N5million was excessive in the circumstances and contravened the extant principles guiding award of damages. He contended that being a case of breach of contract, the principle for damages is to restore the wronged party to the position he would have been but for the breach. He referred to MTN v. Corporate Communication Investment Ltd. (2019) 30 WRN 1.

He argued that the order lifting the restriction on the respondent’s account already restored him to the position he was before the breach and that any further award of damages amounts to double compensation which the court should guide against. He referred to Agu v. General Oil Ltd (2015) 52 WRN 54.

He argued that the lower court wrongly applied the principles for awarding damages in tort to what was a breach of contract and referred to Aminu Ishola Investment Ltd v. Afri Bank Nig. Plc (2013) LPELR-20624(SC). He then submitted that the award of exemplary damages was wrong in the circumstances and should be set aside and that in the worst case scenario the court may only award nominal damages in favour of the respondent as he failed to establish any loss or damage suffered by him. He referred to Baker Marine (Nig) Ltd. v. Chevron (Nig) Ltd. (2007) 2 WRN 1, Agbi v. Ogbeh (2007) 10 WRN 114 and Airoe Construction & Civil Eng Co. Ltd. v. Uniben (1985) LPELR-273(SC).

The learned counsel argued that there was no evidence of malice or high handedness on the part of the appellant in placing restrictions on the respondent’s account as to justify the award of aggravated or exemplary damages as all it did was to protect the funds of its customers as a responsible corporate citizen. He referred to GFK Investment Nigeria Ltd v. Nigeria Telecomuncations Ltd (2009) 45 WRN 36, Marine Management Associates Inc. & Anor. v. National Maritime Authority (2013) 29 WRN 28 and Williams v. Daily Times (1990) 1 NWLR (Pt. 124) 1 at 30 – 31. He concluded on this issue by submitting that this is an appropriate case for the intervention of an appellate court and referred to Acme Builders Ltd. v. Kaduna State Water Board & Anor. (1999) LPELR (SC).

Contrariwise, Mr. Lawal argued that the contentions of the appellant were misconceived. He pointed at the findings of the lower court indicting the appellant which were not appealed by the appellant and are therefore binding on it and which form the justification for the award of exemplary damages made. He referred to the principles guiding the award of exemplary damages set out in Aondoakaa v. Obot & Anor (2022) 32 WRN 131.