CORAM

---

ADEMOLA, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT

ADEMOLA, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT

TAYLOR, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT

---

PARTIES

---

APPELLANTS

---

R.A.B OPALEYE

RESPONDENTS 

---

AREA(S) OF LAW

---

BANKING LAW—AGREEMENT—CONTRACT—APPEAL

 

 

---

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The plaintiff/respondent sued the defendant/appellant over the unauthorised handling of his accounts with them at the Magistrates’ Court and Judgment was awarded in his favour. Being dissatisfied with the judgment the defendant/appellant appealed to the High Court and the appeal was dismissed. Still being dissatisfied he has appealed to this court.

 

 

---

HELD

---

Appeal dismissed

 

 

---

ISSUES

---

Whether the Bank was entitled to combine the two accounts without notice and without the consent of the customer?

 

 

---

RATIONES DECIDENDI

---

LIABILITIES ARISING FROM A BANK ACCOUNTS MUST NOT BE TRANSFERRED TO ANOTHER ACCOUNT- BELONGING TO THE SAME CUSTOMER

---

A banker who has agreed with a customer to open two ac-counts in his name, and who holds bills which the customer has specifically appropriated to one account, is not entitled, without the customer’s consent, to transfer the proceeds of such bills to the other account. Per BAIRAMIAN, F.J

 

 

---

LIABILITIES ARISING FROM A BANK ACCOUNTS MUST NOT BE TRANSFERRED TO ANOTHER ACCOUNT- BELONGING TO THE SAME CUSTOMER

---

If a banker agrees with his customer to open two or more accounts, he has not, in my opinion, without the assent of the cus-tomer, any right to move either assets or liabilities from the one account to the other; the very basis of his agreement with his cus-tomer is that the two accounts shall be kept separate. Per BAIRAMIAN, F.J

 

 

---

CASES CITED

---

Garnett v. M’Kewan, (1872) L.R. 8 Ex. 10

Greenhalgh (W.P.) & Sons v. Union Bank of Manchester, (1924) 2 K.B. 153

Buckingham & Co. v. London & Midland Bank Ltd., (1895), 12 T.L.R. 70

 

 

---

STATUTES REFERRED TO

---

Not Available

 

---

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT