CORAM

PARTIES

1. CENTRAL BANK OF NIGERIA2. DIRECTOR, BANKING SUPERVISION  CENTRAL BANK OF NIGERIA      APPELLANTS

RESPONDENTS

AREA(S) OF LAW

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The Respondent who was the Divisional Head of the department in charge of foreign exchange documentation at the Equity bank of Nig. Ltd. was advised by the bank’s board of directors to resign his appointment with the bank alongside two others following a breach in the laid down procedures in the sales of foreign exchange after the 1st Appellant revoked the bank’s licence to conduct foreign exchange transaction and also penalized the bank. Following an investigation by a Special Board Committee set up by the 1st Appellant, the employment of the Respondent and other employees was found to be complicit in illegal foreign exchange transactions which constituted serious misconduct which entitled the bank under Section 44(2)(d) of the Banks and Other Financial Institutions Act 1991(as amended) to blacklist him. Upon termination of his employment, the Respondent instituted an action before the Federal High Court against Equity Bank and the Central Bank of Nigeria challenging the termination of his appointment for the purpose of blacklisting him even though the bank had accepted his letter of resignation and had paid him his entitlements. The court in its judgement entered in favour of the Respondent and declared that the Respondent not having been dismissed and his appointment not having been terminated for reasons of fraud, dishonesty or conviction for an offence involving fraud or dishonesty, the 1st Appellant cannot invoke the provisions of Section 44(2)(d) of the Banks and Other Financial Institutions Act 1991(as amended) against the Respondent to blacklist him. Subsequently, the Respondent sought employment in other financial institutions which was unsuccessful as he required clearance from the CBN before any bank or financial institution could employ him hence he instituted another action against the Appellants by way of originating summons before the Federal High Court where he sought some reliefs. The trial court upheld the blacklisting of the Respondent and found him guilty of foreign exchange malpractices. Dissatisfied with the trial court’s decision, the Respondent’s appeal to the Court of Appeal was allowed in part which ordered that the name of the Appellant be de-blacklisted. The Appellants have further appealed against the decision of the lower court.

HELD

Appeal Allowed.

ISSUES

Ø  Whether the appellants were entitled to rely on the findings of fact in an earlier judgment in the later action as a defence in the later action? Ø  Whether there was sufficient evidence before the Court of Appeal to justify the reversal of the decision of the trial court and consequently grant of the relief of de-blacklisting sought by the respondent?

RATIONES DECIDENDI

CASES CITED

STATUTES REFERRED TO

Banks and Other Financial Institutions Act 1991 (BOFIA) (as amended)Banks and other Financial Institutions Act Cap. B3 Laws of  the Federation of Nigeria, 2004Central Bank of Nigeria ActEvidence Act 2011

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT