Citibank Nigeria Limited V. MR. Martins Ikediashi (2014)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

SAMUEL CHUKWUDUMEBI OSEJI, J.C.A.: (Delivering The Leading Judgment)

This appeal is against the judgment of the High Court of Lagos State delivered by Hon. Justice F. A. Atilade on the 16th day of February 2007 in suit No.LD/1847/2004.

The appellant herein was the defendant in the trial court while the Respondent was the claimant who by a writ of summons and statement of claim dated 20-10-2004 claimed against the defendant (now appellant as follows:-

(a) “Damages for breach of contract in the sum of N10 million.

(b) Damages for libel in the sum of N10 million as the defendants 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 till final payment thereof”.

The appellant (as defendant) responded by filing a statement of defence dated 31-3-2005 but was subsequently amended pursuant to an order of the trial court granted on 6-11-2006. The said amended statement of defence is also dated 6-11-2006.

Briefly put, the Respondents case in the trial court was that he operated a current account with the appellant and on 14-11-2003 while the account was still in credit he issued a cheque in the sum of N30,000 in favour of one DR. T. A. Bashorun. The said cheque was subsequently presented for payment by DR T.A. Bashorun to his bank UBA Plc for payment but it was dishonoured with the words “ACCOUNT CLOSED” endorsed on it.

The Respondent contended that the said endorsement is not only a breach of contract but also libelous having been published to DR. T. A. Bashorun and the staff of UBA Plc when in fact he was not given notice of any such closure of his account with the Appellant.

The appellant on the other hand was of the stance that the endorsement on the cheque was premised on the fact that the Respondents account with it had earlier been closed and notice of the said closure given to the Respondent via a letter sent through a Registered post.

At the trial of the case which commenced on 2-5-2006 the Respondent (as claimant) testified and called one other witness, four exhibits were also tendered in evidence as Exhibit (A – D).

The appellant in its defence called three witnesses as DW1 – DW3 and tendered in evidence Exhibits (E – K).

At the conclusion of hearing, written addresses were ordered, filed and exchanged and parties duly adopted same on the 18-12-2006. In a judgment delivered on 16-2-2007 the learned trial judge in finding in favour of the claimant (now Respondent) held as follows:-