U. B. N. V. OZIGI
July 9, 2025CHUKA OKOLI & ASSOCIATES VS CRUSADER INSURANCE CO. NIG. LTD
July 9, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (1994) Legalpedia (SC) 18521
In the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Fri Mar 25, 1994
Suit Number: SC. 159/1991
CORAM
WALTER SAMUEL N. ONNOGHEN JUSTICE. SUPREME COURT
O. OLATAWURA – JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
M.E. OGUNDARE – JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
E.O. OGWUEGBU – JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
KUDIRAT MOTONMORI O. KEKERE-EKUN JUSTICE. SUPREME COURT
PARTIES
UNION BANK OF NIGERIA LTD APPELLANTS
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The respondent, a customer of the appellant, obtained a loan from the appellant to enable the respondent complete a restaurant. The terms under or subject to which the loan was granted were set out in two deeds of mortgage. He was making payment to the appellant until when there was a disagreement between the appellant and the respondent on the question of the rate of the interest chargeable on the loan. The disagreement could not be resolved. So, the respondent instituted an action against the appellant in the High Court. The trial Judge granted the first four reliefs claimed by the respondent. Dissatisfied with the Judgment of the learned trial Judge, the appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal which dismissed the appeal of the appellant. Dissatisfied with the judgment of the Court of Appeal, the appellant further appealed to the Supreme Court.
HELD
The appeal succeeded and was hereby allowed.
ISSUES
1. Whether the plaintiff in the court below discharged his burden to prove his case by credible evidence to justify the affirmation by the Court of Appeal of the first, second, third and fourth reliefs granted to the plaintiff/respondent by the trial court.2. Whether, on a proper construction of Clause 3 of Exhibits 5 and 6 (Deeds of legal mortgage) the mortgagee (the appellant herein) had an obligation to notify the mortgagor (respondent herein) of the change in interest rates from time to time, and whether the failure of the appellant to give such notice justified the nullification by the Court of Appeal of the variation of interest rate in Clause 3.
RATIONES DECIDENDI
A COUNSEL HAS TO TAKE A DEFINITE STAND
“A counsel has to take a definite stand. He cannot sit on the fence as the law does not permit such a thing. He must make his view known before the case is fixed for judgment. What is open to a counsel when a document is tendered by the other party is to raise an objection if he opposes the admissibility of the document and if he has no objection he should say so.” Per ADIO, J.S.C.
DUTY OF THE APPELLANT IN WRONGFUL ADMISSION OF EVIDENCE
“If the error of law is the wrongful admission of evidence, the appellant must show that, without the admission of the evidence, the decision would have been otherwise.” Per ADIO, J.S.C.
WHERE THERE IS AN EXISTENCE OF A WRITTEN AGREEMENT
“Where a written agreement on a matter exists, evidence of a preliminary oral agreement cannot be introduced.” Per ADIO, J.S.C.
CASES CITED
Olaloye v. Balogun (1990) 5 NWLR (Pt. 148) 24Eke v. Odolofin (1961) 1 Al l N LR 404Macaulay v. NAL Merchant Bank Ltd. (1990) 4 NWLR (Pt. 144) 283Idundun v. Okumagba (1976) 9-10 S.C. 227
STATUTES REFERRED TO
