Citi Bank (Nig) Ltd V. Ikediashi (2020)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

OLUKAYODE ARIWOOLA, J.S.C. 

This is an appeal against the judgment of the Court of Appeal, Lagos Division delivered on the 7th day of February, 2014 affirming the decision of the trial Court, per the Honourable Justice F. O. Atilade delivered on the 16th day of February, 2007 except as to damages. The respondent was the claimant at the trial Court whilst the appellant was the defendant.

The gist of the case goes thus:

By a writ of summons and Statement of Claim both dated 20th October, 2004, the respondent instituted an action against the appellant. In paragraph 18 of the Statement of Claim, the Claimant claims against the defendant as follows:

(a) Damages for the breach of contract in the sum of N10million;

(b) Damages for libel in the sum of N10million as per the defendant’s published defamation vide the cheque dated 14th November, 2003, on which the word “account closed” was written;

(c) A full apology from the defendant to the Claimant.

(d) Interest on the judgment sum at the rate of 10% per annum until final payment thereof.

1

The appellant as defendant in response filed a Statement of Defence dated 31/08/2005 which was subsequently amended pursuant to an Order of Court so to do granted on 06/11/2006.

The respondent’s case as Claimant was that he operated a current account with the appellant and on 14th November, 2003 while the said account was still in credit, he issued a cheque in the sum of thirty thousand Naira (N30,000.00) in favour of one Dr. T. A. Bashorun. The said cheque was subsequently presented for payment by Dr. Bashorun to his bank – United Bank for Africa Plc for payment but the cheque was returned unpaid with the words “ACCOUNT CLOSED” endorsed on it.

The respondent had contended that the said endorsement on the cheque is not only a breach of contract but also libelous having been published to Dr. T. A. Bahorun and the staff of the UBA Plc when in fact he was not given notice of any such closure of his account with the appellant.

​

On the other hand, the appellant’s case was that the endorsement on the cheque which the respondent was complaining about was premised on the fact that the respondent’s account with it had earlier