Union Bank Of Nigeria Plc v. Nuraff Bureau De Change & Ors (2024)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

JOSEPH OLUBUNMI KAYODE OYEWOLE, JCA (Delivering the leading judgment)

This is in respect of an appeal against the judgment of the High Court of Lagos State sitting at the Ikeja Judicial Division delivered on the 28th February, 2019 by Lawal, J.

Following a dispute over the operation of the 1st respondent’s current account with the appellant, the respondents took out a writ of summons against the appellant wherein they sought the following reliefs:

1. A declaration that the action of the defendant to refuse the claimants access, operate the claimants current account No. 0037268313 operated by the claimants at the defendant Moloney Branch, Lagos Island, Lagos is wrongful, illegal, unconstitutional, arbitrary, null and void.
2. An order directing the defendant and in particular, the defendant branch office of Moloney Street, Lagos Island, Lagos to continue banking operations with the claimants in respect of the claimants’ current account No. 0037268313.
3. An order of injunction restraining the Defendant whether by themselves, their agents, servants and or privies from further interference in any manner whatsoever or however with the normal operations of the claimants’ current account No. 0037268313 operated by the claimants at the Moloney Street, Lagos Island, Lagos branch of the defendant.
4. An order for payment of the sum of N19,553,819.23k (Nineteen million five hundred and fifty-three thousand, eight hundred and nineteen naira, twenty-three kobo) being the claimants money with the defendant plus interest at the rate of 21% per month effective from the 16th February, 2013 until final judgment and thereafter at the rate of 6% per annum until judgment debt is finally liquidated.
5. An order directing the defendant to indemnify the claimants for all loss occasioned to the third parties by the claimants as a result of the conduct of the defendant.
6. An order directing the defendant to pay to the claimants for all loss of profits and incidental expenses incurred by the claimants as a result of the defendant’s actions.
7. The sum of N20,000,000.00 being general damages for breach of contract and loss of reputation.
8. The sum of N20,000,000.00 for libelous endorsement by the defendant on cheques issued by the claimants in favour of Eliza Ramola Olaide, Abibu Mohammed Gwarzo and Jim-Ajasa Azeez Babatunde.
9. The sum of N400,000,000.00 per month from 16th February, 2013 as special damage until final judgment
10. The sum of N3,900,000.00 for hiring a solicitor to prosecute this case.

The appellant as defendant joined issues with the respondents and counter-claimed as follows:

Whereof the defendant counterclaims the sum of N7.6 million being the balance of the fraud proceeds paid into the 1st claimant’s account frittered away before a lien was placed on the fraud proceeds at the rate of 21% per annum compound interest from the ? day of January, 2014 until final liquidation.

At trial, the sole witness for the respondents as claimants was the managing director of the 1st respondent while a lone witness, a staff of the appellant in the fraud and investigation unit in its internal audit department, testified for the appellant. Thereafter, the learned trial Judge took final addresses from the respective counsel for the parties. In a considered judgment subsequently delivered as aforesaid on the 28th February, 2019, the court found in favour of the respondents and granted their reliefs in a modified form while the counter-claim was dismissed.

Dissatisfied, the appellant invoked the appellate jurisdiction of this court via a notice of appeal filed on the 13th March, 2019 containing seven grounds. The said notice of appeal was subsequently amended via the amended notice of appeal filed on the 27th January, 2023 but deemed properly filed and served on the 10th July, 2023.

At the hearing of the appeal, Mr. Olaleru, SAN adopted the amended appellant’s brief filed on 6th February, 2023 but also deemed properly filed and served on the 10th July, 2023 as the arguments of the appellant in furtherance of the appeal.

For the respondents, Mr. Giwa withdrew the preliminary objection hitherto filed by the respondents and adopted the amended respondents’ brief filed on the 23rd February, 2023 and equally deemed properly filed and served on the 10th July, 2023 as the arguments of the respondents in contesting the appeal.

The appellant distilled three issues for determination thus:

1. Whether the judgment of the lower court delivered on the 28th of February, 2019 is not liable to be set aside in view of the fact that the learned trial Judge wrongfully excluded the original of the letter dated 16th January, 2013 (marked exhibit R1/R2) on the grounds that it is inadmissible after a photocopy of the document had earlier been rejected in evidence? Ground one.
2. Whether in view of the letter of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) dated 8th June 2018, the findings of the lower court could still be said to be valid and subsisting as to not occasion a substantial miscarriage of justice to the appellant? Ground two.
3. Whether in view of the specific finding of the trial Judge that the respondent was aware that the cheques issued would not be honored, it was open to the same court to turn around to rule that the respondents were defamed by the acts of the appellant? Ground three.

The respondents on their part distilled two issues from the grounds of appeal thus:

1. Whether the appellant has established by evidence accusation of fraud or any crime against the respondents to warrant the lower court not granting judgment in favour of the respondents in the suit. (Grounds 1 and 2).
2. Whether the respondents’ account was active at the time the appellant refused to honour exhibits C1, C10A and C10B which has caused a serious damage to the credit and reputation of the respondents. (Ground 3).

I have considered the two sets of issues and I shall adopt those of the appellant which flow better with the grounds of appeal. In doing so, I shall juxtapose the relevant arguments of the respondents with those of the appellant under consideration.

Issues 1 and 2 will be taken together. The said issues are:

Whether the judgment of the lower court delivered on the 28th of February, 2019 is not liable to be set aside in view of the fact that the learned trial Judge wrongfully excluded the original of the letter dated 16th January, 2013 (marked exhibit R1/R2) on the grounds that it is inadmissible after a photocopy of the document had earlier been rejected in evidence?