Union Bank Of Nigeria Plc V. Branksome Properties Ltd. (2007)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

CLARA BATA OGUNBIYI, J.C.A,

The plaintiffs’ claim against the defendant is in the sum of five million naira being damages suffered by the plaintiff for breach of contract when the defendant constituted the Title Deed of the plaintiff Registered as No.6 at page 6 in Volume 1568 in the Lands Registry, Lagos into a mortgage and refused to release same to the plaintiff on demand.

The plaintiff alleged that the title deed was deposited and kept with the defendant on a simple deposit agreement for safe keeping on behalf of the plaintiff. That the defendant has therefore subsequently refused and failed to release the said title deed supra to the plaintiff despite repeated demands and hence the institution of the suit from which this appeal stems.

The plaintiff filed an initial statement of claim which was subsequently amended and filed on the 6th February, 1991 evidenced at pages 75 – 82 of the record of appeal. At paragraph 34 of the said statement of claim the plaintiff therefore claimed as follows:-

“34. WHEREOF the plaintiff claims against the defendant as follows:-

(i) Declaration that the refusal of the defendant to release the original Deed of Conveyance dated 16th June, 1976 and registered as No.6/6/1568 to the plaintiff on demand is unlawful and a breach of contract.

(ii) An order compelling the defendant to release the said Deed of Conveyance Registered as No.6/6/1568 to the plaintiff.

(iii) The sum of five million Naira (N5, million) being damages suffered by the plaintiff for breach of contract when the defendant refused to release to it the Deed of Conveyance dated 16th June, 1976 and registered as No.6, at page 6 in Volume 1568 at the Land Registry, Lagos, which said Deed was kept with the defendant for safe custody. Despite repeated demands made by the plaintiff to the defendant since 1988 for the release of the said document the defendant has refused and failed to release same.”

At pages 96 – 99 of the record, the defendant filed a fourteen paragraphs statement of defence wherein it totally denied the plaintiffs claim at paragraph 14 and said:-

“WHEREOF the Defendant says that the claim is vexatious, frivolous, speculative and constitutes, an abuse of process of court and should therefore be dismissed.”

Deducing from the Plaintiff s claim, same was for monetary damages and the brief facts as summarized from the statement of claim are as follows:-

That the plaintiff was the customer of the defendant in regards to the Bank-Account which it maintained at the defendant’s 40, Marina Lagos branch. That within the ambit of a contractual Banker/Customer relationship, the plaintiff deposited its Title Deed (the Deed) with the defendant for safekeeping; in consideration, the plaintiff paid the periodic commissions charged by the defendant.

That the plaintiff s Board (by a Resolution), decided to sell the property covered by the Deed in order to raise money for a profit – oriented venture. Consequently, the plaintiff therefore made a formal demand on the defendant, who refused to release same, on the contention that it was being held as collateral for an over draft facility standing to the debit of the plaintiff. That the plaintiff was then constrained to institute the action in the High Court whereby it claimed the reliefs as per the endorsement on its Amended Statement of Claim reproduced supra.

The plaintiff/respondent on the one hand and to prove its claim called five witnesses whose evidence were at pages 53 – 60; 84 -87 and 102 – 103 of the record of appeal. The said witnesses were all cross-examined. The defendant/appellant on the other hand called only one witness at pages 104 – 107 of the record. While the defendant’s address is at pages 107-110 of the record of appeal, that of the plaintiff is at pages 113-117 of same. At the end of the proceedings, the learned trial judge found for the plaintiff in the following terms:-