Yisi Nigeria Limited V. Trade Bank Plc (2013)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

Endorsed on the Writ of Summons issued at the Registry of the Ilorin Judicial Division of the Kwara State High court on 21/11/96 are the plaintiff’s claims against the defendant:

“1. The sum of $82,560.00 standing to the credit of the plaintiff as at 1st of May 1992 in his accounts with the defendant.

2. Interest on the said plaintiff’s funds at 21% per annum from 1st May, 1992 up to the date of judgment and thereafter at 10% on judgment sum until the judgment debt is fully liquidated.
3. A declaration that the plaintiff having paid a total of N5,200,000.00 as at 30th January, 1995 and having substantial credit due to them as claimed in paragraphs 1 and 2 above could not and is not owing the defendant a staggering debt of N9,072,227 as demanded in the defendant’s letter of 1st November, 1996 or owing any sum whatsoever.
4. An order of injunction restraining the defendant by themselves, their servants, agents and/or privies from further demanding payment of and/or taking any further steps towards the recovery of the alleged indebtedness of the plaintiff and/or the principal officers until the final determination of this suit.
5. An order on the defendant to render a correct and proper statement of all the accounts of the plaintiff with the defendant.”

In the further amended, and operative Statement of Claim dated, and filed on, 16th July 2001 the plaintiff claimed as per paragraph 20, the last paragraph thereof as follows:

“20. Wherefore the plaintiff denied owing the defendant any sums of money and claim from the defendant as per his Writ of Summons.”

In paragraph 26 of the amended Statement of Defence the defendant pleaded thus:

“26. Whereof the defendant denies the plaintiffs claim in its entirely and shall at the trial urge this Honourable Court to dismiss same for want of merit and substance.”

The plaintiff filed a reply to the Statement of Defence and concluded in paragraph 16 thereof as follows:

“16. Whereof the plaintiff denies the defence in its entirety and shall urge the Hon. Court to dismiss same at the trial for lack of merit.”

At the conclusion of the trial the trial Court gave judgment for the plaintiff on four of the five claims. Dissatisfied with the judgment, the defendant, now appellant, appealed to the Court of Appeal, Ilorin Division. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment of the trial Court.

The plaintiff appealed to the Supreme Court on nine (9) grounds. In compliance with the rules and practice of the Court, learned Counsel for the parties filed and exchanged briefs of argument.

Learned Counsel for the appellant framed the following five issues from the nine grounds of appeal:

“5.01. Whether the indebtedness of the appellant was an issue for determination before the Court and if so whether the Lower Court was right when it held that issue No. 4 of the Respondents brief of argument before that Court had no sustaining ground

5.02, Whether the learned justices of the Court of Appeal were right to have held that the disputed unutilized funds of $82,560.00 claimed by the appellant had actually been paid for by the respondents to the appellant

5.03. Whether the lower Court was correct in accepting Exhibit D.11 as establishing the CBN regulation pleaded by the respondent and if so whether the respondent did in fact comply with the terms of the said regulation