M.O. KANU, SONS & COMPANY LIMITED V FIRST BANK OF NIGERIA PLC. - Legalpedia | The Complete Lawyer - Research | Productivity | Health

M.O. KANU, SONS & COMPANY LIMITED V FIRST BANK OF NIGERIA PLC.

JUSTUS NWABUOKU & ORS V. FRANCIS ONWORDI & ORS
June 5, 2025
LEWIS OPARA VS DOWEL SCHLUMBERGER (NIGERIA) LIMITED & ANOR
June 6, 2025
JUSTUS NWABUOKU & ORS V. FRANCIS ONWORDI & ORS
June 5, 2025
LEWIS OPARA VS DOWEL SCHLUMBERGER (NIGERIA) LIMITED & ANOR
June 6, 2025
Show all

M.O. KANU, SONS & COMPANY LIMITED V FIRST BANK OF NIGERIA PLC.

Legalpedia Citation: (2006) Legalpedia (SC) 16411

In the Supreme Court of Nigeria

Fri May 26, 2006

Suit Number: SC. 349/2001

CORAM


PIUS OLAYIWOLA ADEREMI JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

SUNDAY AKINOLA AKINTAN

USTICE, SUPREME COURT


PARTIES


M.O. KANU, SONS & COMPANY LIMITED APPELLANT(S) / PLAINTIFF(S)


DEFENDANTS/ RESPONDENTS


AREA(S) OF LAW



SUMMARY OF FACTS

The appellant sued the respondent as the defendant in an action in negligence. He had taken out an overdraft facility which was to be used in importing for resale bales of Stockfish. It failed to repay the overdraft and interest thereon despite concessions granted it by the respondent. He lost at the trial court which found that he failed to prove negligence; finding of which was confirmed by the Court of Appeal.


HELD


APPEAL DISMISSED


ISSUES


1. Whether the Respondent’s charging of 361/2% on the loan given to the appellant as against C.B.N’s approved lending rate was proper in the circumstances.2.  Whether the contract of loan entered into by the parties was not illegal considering the fact that the same was not within C.B.N’s lending rate.3.  Whether considering exhibit ‘V’ the respondent could not be deemed to have waived the initial contract agreement between the parties.4.  Whether the Respondent was not negligent in the way and manner he handled the appellant’s shipment process.


RATIONES DECIDENDI


WHEN TIME IS MADE THE ESSENCE OF AN AGREEMENT


“It is settled law that if time is made the essence of an agreement and the time frame is not met by performance or acceptance within the time stipulated, the offeror will not be held to a contract. Further, an offer may only be accepted in the manner and terms attached to the offer”. {Per G.A. OGUNTADE, JSC }


PARTICULARS OF NATURE OF ILLEGALITY PLEADED


“In any case, it is settled law that a plaintiff whose case is that the defendant has been guilty of malpractices amounting to an illegality must set out the particulars of the nature of the illegality pleaded or involved”. {Per G.A. OGUNTADE, JSC }


CASES CITED


1. College of Medicine V. Adegbite [1973] 5 SC. 1492. Majekodunmi V. National Bank of Nigeria [1978] 3 SC. 1193. Niger Dam V. Lajide [1973] 5 SC.20074. Mobil V. Johnson [1961] 1 All N.L.R. 935. Akinbola George & Ors. V. Dominion Flour Mills Ltd [1963] 1 All N.L.R. 716. Re Robinson’s Settlement [1912] 1 Ch. 7247. Kala V. Jarmakani Transport Ltd. [1961] All N.L.R. 7478. Agbonmagbe Bank Ltd. V. C.F.A.O. (1966) 1 All NLR 1409. Scrimati Bibhabati Devi V. Kumar Ramendre Narayan Roy 62 TLR 54910. Kefi V. Kofi 1 WACA 28411. The Stool of Abinabina V. Chief Kojo Enimadu [1953] 12 WACA 17112. Enang V. Adu [1981] 11-12 SC. 17 at 27 (Reprint).


STATUTES REFERRED TO


None.


CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT

Comments are closed.