CORAM

---

IFEOMA JOMBO-OFO JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEAL

MOHAMMED BABA IDRIS JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEAL

ADEBUKOLA I. BANJOKO JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEAL

---

PARTIES

---

1. ARITA PHARMACUETICAL LTD

2. DR. FRANCIS E. U. ISANGEDIGHI

3. MRS. HENRIETTA N. ISANGEDIGHI APPELLANTS

 

APPELLANTS 

---

1. EQUITORIAL TRUST BANK PLC

2. ECONOMIC AND FINANCIAL RESPONDENTS

3. CRIMES COMMISSION JUDGMENT

RESPONDENTS 

---

AREA(S) OF LAW

---

APPEAL, BANKING LAW, CONTRACT, EVIDENCE, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

 

 

---

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The 1st Respondent gave the 1st Appellant credit facility of N20, 000,000 upon the conditions in the letter of offer dated 3rd February, 1998. The 1st Appellant accepted the offer upon the conditions and the 2nd and 3rd Appellants signed and stamped the contract on behalf of the 1st Appellant on the 9th of February, 1998. The 2nd and 3rd Appellants were also authorized signatories to the 1st Appellant’s account with the 1st Respondent. The Appellants claim that the sum of N5,000,000 only was disbursed to the 1st Appellant and by a letter dated the 10th day of July, 1998 (Exhibit P3), the 1st Respondent indicated its regret to inform the 1st Appellant that “considering the present portfolio constraint, further disbursed of the N20,000,000 Petroleum Trust Fund Contract facility granted to your company in February, 1998 would no longer be accommodated,” and in the same letter, the 1st Respondent asked the 1st Appellant to make necessary arrangements to refund the N5,000,000 already disbursed as soon as possible.

The Appellants claimed that the 1st Appellant paid part of the loan overdraft facility of N5, 000,000, but did not complete the repayment, even after demands from the 1st Respondent. The 1st Respondent then wrote a petition to the 2nd Respondent alleging fraudulent diversion of Bank’s funds by the 2nd and 3rd Appellants describing them as promoters of the 1st Appellant.

The Appellants also claims that the 2nd Respondent invited the 2nd Appellant for questioning and consequently, the Appellants instituted the action at the trial court against the 1st and 2nd Respondents.

The Trial Court gave judgment in favor of the Respondents. Dissatisfied by the decision the Appellants made the instant appeal.

 

 

---

HELD

---

Appeal dismissed

 

---

ISSUES

---

Whether in the circumstance of this case the 1st Respondent was in breach of Exhibit P1 or not and whether the initial draw down is excluded from the agreement?

Whether the court of first instance was right to have held that the 1st Respondent had proved its counter claim, by granting interest outside the duration of the tenor of the overdraft facility?

 

 

---

RATIONES DECIDENDI

---

AGREEMENT – CONDUCT OF COURTS REGARDING AGREEMENTS

---

It is trite that parties are bound by the terms and conditions provided for in an agreement between them. See the case of A. G. RIVERS STATE VS. A. G. AKWA IBOM STATE (2011) 8 NWLR (PT. 1248) 31 AT 81. – Per M. B. Idris, JCA

 

 

---

CONTRACT – CONDUCT OF COURT TOWARDS CONTRACTS

---

…the Appellants cannot be allowed to use this Court to alter or to add to what was not present in the contract which he has signed in full capacity. – Per M. B. Idris, JCA

 

 

---

DAMAGES – MEANING OF DAMAGES AND SPECIAL DAMAGES

---

Thirdly, damages are the entitlement that arises from a breach of contract. It generally refers to the pecuniary compensation which the law awards to a person for the injury he sustained by reason of the act or default of another, whether that act or default is a breach of contract or tort. See the case of DHL INT’L LTD VS. EZE-UZOAMAKA (2020) 16 NWLR (PT. 1751) 445 (CA). It is also well settled law that general damages is the kind of damage which the law presumes to flow from the wrong complained of. See the case of UKAM VS. TRANSCORP METROPOLITAN HOTEL & CONFERENCE & ANOR (2021) LPELR – 54149 (CA). However, when there is no breach of contract, how then can a party claim damages? – Per M. B. Idris, JCA

 

---

EVIDENCE – CONDUCT OF COURTS IN RELATION TO THEIR RECORD AND EVIDENCE

---

It is trite that the record of court speaks for itself and courts are bound by its record and must look into its record. See the case of LEADERS OF COMPANY LTD & ANOR VS. BAMAIYI (2010) LPELR – 1771 (SC). It is also trite that the duty of an appellate court is to review the findings of the trial court and I am satisfied that the trial court had taken cognizance of the evidence at the trial, which had been reviewed to arrive at its decision. – Per M. B. Idris, JCA

 

---

CASES CITED

---

NIL

 

---

STATUTES REFERRED TO

---

Not avaliable

 

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT