FIRST AFRICAN TRUST BANK LTD V PARTNERSHIP INVESTMENT COMPANY LIMITED

CORAM

UWANI MUSA ABBA AJI

AKINTOLA OLUFEMI EJIWUNMI , JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

PARTIES

FIRST AFRICAN TRUST BANK LTD APPELLANTS

RESPONDENTS

AREA(S) OF LAW

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The claim that eventually led to this appeal was commenced by the plaintiff/respondent before the High Court of Lagos State in Suit No. LD/1395/95. In that suit, the plaintiff/respondent’s claim was for the sum of N7,100,000.00 (seven million, one hundred thousand Naira) being the value of a bank draft issued by the appellant in favour of the respondent on the 8th of February, 1995 as per First African Trust Bank Cheque No. 40622062150011 and which cheque was returned unpaid despite repeated demands.

HELD

The Court allowed the appeal and held that the judgment and orders of the Courts below are accordingly set aside. As the appellant is entitled to its costs in the Courts below and in this Court.?

ISSUES

“(a) Whether in the circumstances of this case the appellant is obliged to pay the respondent on Exhibit P1 when the Court of Appeal had found that the pleadings and evidence of the appellant on want of value had not been controverted nor seriously challenged by the respondent (Ground 1).(b) Whether the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal were right in holding that the appellant had not sufficiently pleaded nor proved the fraud which the appellant alleged in this case (Grounds 2 & 3).(c) Whether in the absence of a written endorsement of the condition precedent on the draft, the appellant is not permitted by law to prove that the delivery of the draft was subject to a condition precedent and whether the condition ought not to bind the respondent who is a nominee of Alhaji Ladan with whom the appellant entered into an agreement for the supply of fore(Ground 4)”

RATIONES DECIDENDI

PLEADINGS – PARTIES AND THE COURT ARE BOUND BY THEIR PLEADINGS

This is because it is settled law that as parties are bound by their pleadings, evidence not pleaded cannot be allowed at the trial. And if such evidence was admitted, then an appellate Court is duty bound to strike out such evidence, and must not consider it in the determination of the appeal. Per A.O. Ejiwunmi J.S.C.

APPELLATE COURT WILL NOT ORDINARILY INTERFERE WITH THE JUDGEMENT OF THE TRIAL COURT

Now, it is settled law that an appellate court would not ordinarily interfere with the judgment of the Court, but where the judgment of Court below was reached either upon erroneous inference drawn from finding of facts or that its application of the law to properly found facts is perverse and/or erroneous, then the appellate court has a duty to intervene to correct the injustice so caused.

CASES CITED

National Investment and Properties Co. Ltd V. Thompson Organisation Ltd and Ors (1969) 1 A.N.L.R. 138 Akeredolu V. Akinremi (1989) 3 N.W.L.R. (pt.108) 164 at 173.Fatoyinbo V. Williams (1956) I F.S.C. 87; (1956) S.C.N.L.R. 274Sarakatu J. Amida V. Osholoja (1984) 7 S.C. 68Finnih V. Imade (1992) 1 N.W.L.R. (pt.219) 511.