Lumatron Nigeria Limited & Anor V. First City Monument Bank Plc (2013)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

MOHAMMED LAWAL GARBA, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

On the 26th of June, 2013, the High Court of Lagos State delivered judgment in the Respondent’s Suit No. LD/174/2004 in its favour and dismissed the Appellants’ Counter Claim for want of proof.

Being dissatisfied with the judgment, the Appellants brought this appeal by the Notice of Appeal dated the 12th, but filed on 16th of July, 2013, which was amended with the leave of the Court by the Amended Notice of Appeal filed on the 2nd of June, 2016.

As required by the Rules of the Court, briefs of argument were filed and exchanged by learned Counsel for the parties to the appeal as follows:-

(1) Appellants’ Amended brief was filed on 2nd of June, 2016.

(2) Respondent’s Brief was filed on 31st of August, 2016, deemed on the 20th of October, 2016.

(3) Appellants’ Reply brief was filed on 17th of October, 2016.

From the five (5) grounds of appeal, Mr. Olalokun Omolodun, Esq. who settled the Appellants’ brief, has submitted the following issues for determination:-

“A. Whether the trial Court was not in error when it relied Exhibit CW25, a

1

purported statement of account, to hold that the Respondent had proven its claims against the appellants (Ground 1);

B. Whether the lower Court was not in error when it failed to order the Respondent to render account for the Appellant’s stock of N27 Million sold by it as counter-claimed by the appellants (Ground 2);

C. Whether the lower Court was not in error when it awarded the Respondent the judgment sum of N10Million against the 2nd Appellant which was not claimed by the Respondent (Ground 3);

D. Upon the Respondent’s failure to render in evidence the notice revoking its foreign exchange license to prove its capacity to engage in foreign exchange transactions at the time of the 2 LC contracts, whether the trial Court did not err in law when it failed to enter judgment for the Appellants on their counterclaim alleging fraudulent misrepresentation regarding capacity to contract against the Respondent (Ground 4); and