- Daniel Holdings Ltd. vs. U.B.A. Plc.
- ₦ 200
Daniel Holdings Ltd. vs. U.B.A. Plc.
DANIEL HOLDINGS LTD.
UNITED BANK FOR AFRICA
SUPREME COURT OF
SALIHU MODIBBO ALFA BELGORE JSC ( Presided )
ALOYSIUS IYORGYER KATSINA-ALU JSC
DAHIRU MUSDAPHER JSC
GEORGE ADESOLA OGUNTADE JSC ( Read the Lead Judgment )
SUNDAY AKINOLA AKINTAN JSC
FRIDAY, 1ST JULY, 2005
ACTION - Writ of summons - Claims therein - Effect of not repeating
same in the statement of claim
APPEAL - Concurrent findings of fact by lower courts - Attitude of
COURT - Supreme Court - Concurrent findings of fact of lower courts
- Attitude of thereto
DAMAGES - Special damages - Need to specifically claim and strictly
INTEREST - Award of interest by court - Plaintiff claiming at the
prevailing market rate - Need to call evidence on prevailing rate of interest
to be entitled to
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Writ of summons - Claims therein Effect of not
repeating same in the statement of claim
Whether the court below was right to have reduced the
amount awarded from N93,846.50 to N68,541.50.
Whether the court below was correct in failing to award
any interest in favour of the plaintiff/appellant.
Whether the cross-appellant/respondent has not shown by
credible evidence on record (particularly) in view of the alterations and/or
falsification evident on the counterfoils tendered as exhibits 1 - 7 vis-Ã -vis the original copies tendered
as exhibits 26 - 29 that a different sum of money was actually received from
plaintiff/appellant as against the sums purportedly acknowledged on the
The plaintiff/appellant a
trading company had its account at defendant/ respondent/cross-appellantâ€™s
Lagos East branch, Lagos and on a regular basis lodged in its account with the
respondent, the proceeds from its business.
Normally, the appellant filled
in a bank teller, consisting of the bankâ€™s copy (or original) and the
customerâ€™s copy (or counterfoil), the amount it intended to pay. This was taken
to the bank by appellantâ€™s employees and lodged with respondentâ€™s officials or
counter-clerks who in acknowledgment of the transaction affixed the bankâ€™s
stamp impression on both the original and counterfoil and the receiving counter-clerk
then appended his signature or initials on both the original and counterfoil.
The appellant alleged that
between 1st February, 1987 and 1st July, 1989 , the amount credited into its
account when contrasted with the payments made and the counterfoils of the
tellers used in making such payments showed a shortfall of N93,846.50
(ninety-three thousand, eight hundred and forty-six naira, fifty kobo). The
respondent denied this and contended that the stamp used on the counterfoil
tellers did not belong to it and that its staff did not initial any false
entries contained in those tellers. They also denied that there was any
shortfall between the amount actually recorded in the original tellers and the
amount credited into appellantâ€™s account.
The appellant therefore
instituted an action against the respondent claiming the sum of N93,846.50
(ninety-three thousand, eight hundred and forty-six naira, fifty kobo). Parties
filed and exchanged pleadings. The trial court from the evidence adduced by the
parties came to the conclusion that the stamp impressions on the counterfoils
of the tellers with which appellant made the payments were the respondentâ€™s and
the respondentâ€™s employees initialled the counterfoils.
In its judgment, the court granted appellantâ€™s claim and
21 % from 1st January, 1991 till date of judgment and 7%
from date of judgment until the amount is liquidated. Dissatisfied, the
respondent appealed to the Court of Appeal which court partially allowed the
appeal. It set aside the order awarding interest and reduced the principal sum
from N93,846.50 ( ninety-three thousand, eight hundred and forty-six naira,
fifty kobo) to N68,541.50 (sixty-eight thousand, five hundred and forty-one
naira, fifty kobo).
with the judgment, the appellant appealed to the Supreme Court. The respondent