CORAM
ADEMOLA, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT
BRETT, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT
HUBBARD, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT
PARTIES
APPELLANTS
JOSEPH O.E. AGBANYIM
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
ADJOURNMENTS-LAW OF BANKING
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The respondent deposited money twice with the appellant through its branch manager after banking hours who returned his paying in book duly stamped. Before final address, the appellant sought for adjournment to call witnesses without indicating which witness.
HELD
The court held that the bank was liable for the act of its branch manager and that the adjournment sought was correctly refused.
ISSUES
Whether the respondent made deposit in the sums contained in Exhibit B & C.
RATIONES DECIDENDI
A BANK WILL BE HELD LIABLE FOR CONDUCT OF ITS MANAGER.
‘the bank would be liable for the fraud of its Manager.’ Per Hubbard, J.S.C
WHETHER JUDGES HAVE A DISCRETION WITH REGARDS THE GRANTING OF ADJOURNMENTS
‘granting of an adjournment is a matter within the discretion of the trial judge.’ Per Hubbard, Ag. F.J
CASES CITED
1. Barwick v. English Joint Stock Bank (1867) 2 Ex. 259
2. Enitan Edun 14 W.A.C.A. 642)
STATUTES REFERRED TO
Not Available