Skymit Motors Ltd V. Uba Plc (2020)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

AMINA ADAMU AUGIE, J.S.C.

The Appellant, who was a customer of the Respondent at its Ikeja Branch, was granted several facilities at the interest rate of between 21% and 36%, from 11/2/1998 to 13/10/1999. When it discovered that the Bank imposed arbitrary and uncontracted interest rate charges on the said Facilities, without its knowledge, consent and/or approval, the Appellant engaged the services of Financial Consultants, Corimol Nigeria Ltd., to reconcile its accounts with the Respondent Bank. The Financial Consultants did the reconciliation and presented a Report that revealed a number of excess interest charges, excess and illegally charged Commission on Turnover, and unlawful interest charges on excess charges on its two Accounts.

The Appellant wrote letters of complaints to the Respondent and in its letter to the Appellant dated 18/3/2002, the Bank admitted as follows:

Following the series of correspondence and meetings held between both establishments coupled with further review of the account, please note the sum of N7,209,906.55 being funds considered for refund [The breakdown is]: Interest on Overdrafts N4,216,058.00

Excess COT and VAT N132,745.91

Excess Interest on Reversed Charges N38,250.11

Interest calculated on excess Charges N1,448,926.05

Excess interest on Loan Facilities N1,373,926.48

N7,209,906.55

Fired up by the above admission, the Appellant wrote several letters to the Respondent demanding payment and/or refund of all monies illegally appropriated from its accounts by the Bank. But the Respondent failed or refused to comply, which pushed the Appellant to file a Suit against the Respondent at the Lagos State High Court, wherein it sought a number of declaratory reliefs, orders, damages, and Relief 8, in particular, was for:

Interest at the rate of 21% on Reliefs 5, 6, 7, 8 and/or 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15 from the dates stated herein to when final Judgment is delivered and thereafter 21% until Judgment sum is finally liquidated.

The Respondent filed a 52-paragraph Statement of Defence wherein it denied the Appellant’s claim and also averred in paragraphs 50 and 51 that:

50. [It] is not liable to the Claimant [Appellant herein] in the sums stated in the Writ of Summons or any other sum at all. ​

The Claimant [Appellant]’s Suit an afterthought, mischievous, vexatious, a gold-digging litigation, an abuse of the process of this Hon. Court and should be dismissed with substantial cost

​