EJISIN-B & SONS (NIG) & ANOR v. UNION BANK OF (NIG) PLC & ANOR
(2022)LCN/16450(CA)
In The Court Of Appeal
(OWERRI JUDICIAL DIVISION)
On Thursday, October 27, 2022
CA/OW/212/2020
Before Our Lordships:
Rita Nosakhare Pemu Justice of the Court of Appeal
Oludotun Adebola Adefope-Okojie Justice of the Court of Appeal
Ibrahim Wakili Jauro Justice of the Court of Appeal
Between
1. EJISIN-B & SONS NIGERIA 2. MAZI EJIKE AGODI APPELANT(S)
And
1. UNION BANK OF NIGERIA PLC 2. ASSET MANAGEMENT CORPORATION OF NIGERIA RESPONDENT(S)
RATIO:
POSITION OF LAW ON CONTRACT BETWEEN TWO PARTIES
It is settled law that the Court is not to make a contract for the parties but is to construe the surrounding circumstances, including written and oral statements, so as to effect the intention of the parties. Courts will seek to uphold bargains made commercially, wherever possible, and will seek to construe any document fairly and broadly without being too astute or subtle in finding defects. See Omega Bank Plc v. O.B.C. (2005) 8 NWLR (Part 928) Page 547 SC at 574-575 Para H-A; Page 576 Para B-D per Musdapher, JSC (as he then was). OLUDOTUN ADEBOLA ADEFOPE-OKOJIE, J.C.A.
POSITION OF LAW ON BANKERS INTEREST CHARGE ON AN OVERDRAFT
It has been settled over time that, as the universal custom on banking, a banker has the right to charge interest at a reasonable rate on all overdrafts. This power has however been held not to be absolute. OLUDOTUN ADEBOLA ADEFOPE-OKOJIE, J.C.A.
POSITION OF LAW WHERE A PARTY HAS NOT APPEALED AGAINST A FINDING OF THE TRIAL COURT OR THE COURT OF APPEAL
The law is that where a party has not appealed against a finding of the trial Court or the Court of Appeal, he is deemed to have admitted the same and cannot be heard to question that finding on appeal – Awodi v. Ajagbe (2015) 3 NWLR Part 1447 Page 578 at 599 Para A; (2015) All FWLR Part 769 Page 1129 at 1142 Para G-H per Okoro JSC; Compagnie Generale De Geophysique (Nig) Ltd v. Aminu (2015) 7 NWLR Part 1459 Page 577 at 594 Para A-B per Rhodes-Vivour JSC. OLUDOTUN ADEBOLA ADEFOPE-OKOJIE, J.C.A.
OLUDOTUN ADEBOLA ADEFOPE-OKOJIE, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): This is an appeal against the judgment of the Federal High Court, Umuahia Judicial Division delivered on the 19th day of March 2020, by D.E. Osiagor J. in Suit No. FHC/CS/82/2016, dismissing the claim of the Appellants as Plaintiffs before it. Aggrieved, the Appellants filed a Notice of Appeal on 16th day of June 2020, which was amended by leave of the Court on 1st of February 2022. The Amended Notice of Appeal, filed on 20/8/20 was accordingly deemed as properly filed on that date.
Background Facts
The 1st Appellant was a customer of the 1st Respondent Bank. Upon the application of the 1st Appellant, the 1st Respondent approved a credit facility to the tune of N16 Million on 12th January 2004 in favour of the 1st Appellant, in order to finance a special scheme known as “Guinness Distributorship Finance Scheme” wherein Guinness Nigeria Plc covenanted to guarantee credit facilities from the 1st Respondent to the distributors, of which the 1st Appellant was one of them. The overdraft was scheduled to expire after one year and subject to review on 13th December 2005.
The 1st Respondent requested for collateral, whereupon a Third-Party Legal Mortgage was executed between the Appellants and the 1st Respondent. The overdraft was later reviewed downwards by the 1st Respondent to N12 Million. The Appellants complained that in spite of various lodgments made by them into the account, the 1st Respondent alleged that the Appellants were still indebted to them. They also alleged that even after the debt was said to be “non-performing” and sold to the 2nd Respondent, the Respondents continued to charge arbitrarily, alleging an indebtedness of N58,342,353.78.
They (Appellants), in consequence, sued the Respondents before the Federal High Court at the Umuahia Judicial Division, accusing the 1st Respondent of having manipulated the account of the 1st Appellant. The Appellants alleged that the 1st Respondent at different intervals varied the interest rate on the overdraft facility, thereby charging arbitrary and unwarranted interests and charges on the account, without recourse to them. These arbitrary charges continued beyond the terminal date and even after the facility had become a non-performing one, contrary to CBN Guidelines.
They thus sought from the lower Court, the following prayers:
1. A declaration that the Plaintiffs’ consent to the offer of overdraft facilities and loan by the 1st Defendant vide her letters dated 21st September, 2005, 23rd November, 2005 and 13th March, 2006 were obtained by economic duress and as such, the said documents are void, the 1st Defendant having predicated the economic duress on the Deed of Mortgage dated 17th January, 2007 and registered as No. 80 at Page 80 in Volume 816 of the Lands Registry in the office at Umuahia.
2. A declaration that the contract between the Plaintiffs and the 1st Defendant resulting to (sic:in) the demand contained in the 1st Defendant’s letter dated 12th November, 2007 and 18th April, 2008 as well as the 2nd Defendant’s letter dated 29th January, 2013 with Ref: FAB/ABJ/C/28/13 addressed to the Plaintiffs are illegal, against public policy and void.
3. A declaration that the Defendants are not entitled to debit the account of the 1st Plaintiff with them with unauthorized, unwarranted and illegal charges and indeed rates of interest that are contrary to the Central Bank of Nigeria Guidelines issued from time to time.
4. A declaration that the Defendants individually or collectively are not entitled to sell the 2nd Plaintiff’s property situate at Umuelendu Village in Obingwa Local Government Area of Abia State of Nigeria covered by Certificate of Occupancy dated 3/2/2002 and registered as No. 14 at Page 14 in Volume 60 of the Lands Registry in the office at Umuahia in realization of the Mortgage executed by the Plaintiffs in favour of the 1st Defendant as security for overdrafts and loan granted to the 1st Plaintiff.
5. A declaration that the Plaintiffs have been discharged from their obligations under the said Mortgage and are entitled to have their property aforesaid released to them.
6. An order of this Honourable Court ordering the Defendants to refund to the Plaintiffs the total sum of N76,589,600.00 (Seventy Six Million, Five Hundred and Eighty-Nine Thousand, Six Hundred Naira) made as stated hereunder as at 22nd May, 2014, plus accrued interest up to date at prevailing rates of interest;
(a) Excess Charges = N28,051,917.00
(b) Interest on Excess Charges = N10,104,453.00
(c) Duplicated Penal Charge = N81,511.00
(d) Interest on Penal Charge = N56,919.00
(e) 100% Penalty = N38,294,800.00
TOTAL = N76,589,600.00
7. An order of this Honourable Court restraining the Defendants either by themselves, their agents, servants or otherwise, howsoever from selling the 2nd Plaintiff’s property or otherwise disposing of same except as may be directed by the Court
8. A declaration that from the time the 1st Defendant sent to the 1st Plaintiff her Final Demand Notice dated 8th June, 2006, the 1st Plaintiff’s account with the 1st Defendant ceased to be a mercantile account and therefore ceased to attract any more interest.
At trial, the 2nd Appellant testified, as PW1. Michael Chibuike Agulehi, an Accountant, testified as PW2, tendering the Reconciliation Report of the 1st Appellant’s account with the 1st Respondent. In their defence, the sole witness was one Richard Amos, a staff of the 1st Respondent. The trial Judge, in his judgment, discountenanced the Reconciliation report, referring to the same as an “audit report” and since it had no input from the 1st Respondent, was not binding on the 1st Respondent and of no consequence. He proceeded to dismiss the claims of the Appellants, holding them not to have been established as required by law.
Briefs of Arguments
In prosecution of their appeal, the Appellants, further to the transmission of their record of appeal, filed an Appellants’ Brief of Arguments on 10/2/22, settled by Uche S. Awa SAN of Uche S. Awa and Co in which four (4) issues are distilled for determination, as follows:
1. Whether the Appellants discharged the evidential burden placed on them to entitle them to judgment.
2. Whether the indefinite accrual and accumulation of interests and charges was within the contemplation of the overdraft contract and within the ambit of the law.
3. Whether the decision of the lower Court is perverse and ought to be reversed owing to its findings and consequential holding regarding Exhibit F.
4. Whether by accepting the content of the offer letters, Appellants had thereby waived clear provisions of the Bank and other Financial Institution Act and Central Bank of Nigeria Guidelines.
The 1st Respondent’s Counsel, F.O. Okonkwo of Tony Oguguo & Co. filed the 1st Respondent’s Brief of Arguments on 27/9/22, deemed on the same date as properly filed and served, in which the following are the issues distilled for determination, namely:
1. Whether the Appellant in the Court below proved their case on the preponderance of evidence before the said lower Court or in the alternative whether the Appellants discharged the evidential burden placed on them to entitle them to judgment.
2. Whether the Appellants haven benefitted from the loan or facility advanced to them by 1st Respondent can turn around to allege that same is null and void.
The 2nd Respondent’s Brief of Arguments, filed on 2/8/22 was settled by I.D. Nwaohiri of Durugo-Nwaohiri, Mbaike & Co in which two issues are formulated for determination, as follows:
1. Whether a party who voluntarily entered into a contract can challenge the contents of the contract as illegal after benefiting therefrom?
2. Whether a party who did not participate in preparing investigative and reconciliation report that was made against him can be bound by the said report?
I shall adopt the issues for determination formulated by the Appellants, which I note encompasses those formulated by the other Respondents, but shall take all the issues together.
Appellants’ Submissions
The learned Silk has submitted that the Appellants discharged the evidential burden placed on them. He referred to the CBN Guidelines and Prudential Guidelines to show that the 1st Respondent dealt with the account of the 1st Appellant in a manner prohibited by the Central Bank Guidelines. He also referred to the Report of their Accountant (Exhibit F) which he complained that the lower Court wrongfully discountenanced on the ground that it was an Auditor’s Report which had no input from the 1st Respondent. The decision, he said, failed to take cognizance of the inalienable right of every bank account holder to unqualified and unfettered capacity to investigate his financial standing at any point in time without recourse to the bank. By holding that an investigation of one’s account with a view to reconciling its content must be done with input from the bank, is tantamount to curtailing the said right. The Appellant, he said, never put the report up as an audit report.
He alleged that there was insufficient traverse of Para 20 of their Statement of Claim by the 1st Respondent with regard to the accounts. Their averments should thus be accepted as true. It was Counsel’s further submission that interests on overdrafts cease to accrue once the terminal date is passed unless it was agreed ab initio that interest would accrue on any sum standing unpaid indefinitely. He cited Integrated Dimensional Systems V. Aib (2002) A NWLR (Pt. 758) 660; UBA V. Lawal (2008) 7 NWLR at page 633 Paras B – D; Clause 5.2(i) of the Prudential Guidelines for Licensed Banks 1990. From the evidence, the overdraft expired on the 13th day of December 2005, culled from Para 10 of the Statement of Claim and the admission of the 1st Respondent in Para 8(a) of the Statement of Defence. There is nothing on the face of the document that could suggest that interest would continue to accrue and/or accumulate on any sum remaining unpaid beyond the review dates. Rather, parties intended that on the 13th day of December, 2005 the overdraft would expire and accumulation of interest would also cease. He contended that the phrase: “but in accordance with normal banking practice remains payable on demand and subject to revision at any time (sic) at the bank’s discretion without notice”, purported to be a ground for the unending charging of interest, cannot be taken to suggest that parties agreed that interest would continue to accrue on any part of the balance remaining unpaid. The 1st Respondent neither pleaded nor proved such fact and there is no evidence before the Court to support that proposition. A lender bank, he argued, is only entitled to damages for breach of contract where the account holder delays payment beyond the expiry/review date.
1st Respondent’s submissions
It is learned counsel’s submission that it is trite that a Plaintiff must prove his case on the balance of probabilities and must succeed on the strength of his own case and not on the weakness of the defence, citing the cases of Oyinloye v. Esinkin (1999)10 NWLR (Part 624) Page 540 at 549; Bakare Elufisoye v. Samuel Alabetutu (1968) NMLR Page 298 at 302.
Counsel further submitted that the Appellants were never in doubt as to the contents of the various offer letters and the agreement entered into by them and the 1st Respondents; stating that the Appellants never tendered any evidence to show that Guinness Nig. Plc guaranteed the loan, rather the PW1 (2nd Appellant) had admitted that he was the one to be held responsible, having guaranteed the loan.
With respect to Exhibit F, learned Counsel held that the Audit Report (Exhibit F) is null and void and ought to be discountenanced as it was made without the consent and input of the 1st Respondent and was not signed by a qualified chartered accountant but by a firm of accountants, neither was it countersigned by a Legal practitioner as required by S. 359 (2) Companies and Allied Matters Act. He cited the cases of Chief Gabriel Igbinedion & Ors v. Umoh Asuquo Anita (2008) 15 NWLR (Part 1642) Page 202 at 264; Obong-Ifiok (DR) Anny Asikpo v. Access Bank PLC (2015) LPELR- 25845 (CA); Adigun v. A.G Oyo State (1987) 13 SC 250.
1st Respondent’s Counsel further contended that it is clear and undisputed that credit facilities were granted to the Appellants by the 1st Respondent, pursuant to which the Appellants and the 1st Respondent entered into a Tripartite Legal Mortgage, therefore it would be inequitable for the Appellants, after obtaining a loan and utilizing it, to turn around and allege that the agreement is null and void. The law, he said, is that a party having taken a benefit under a contract cannot seek to avoid its obligations under the contract entered into voluntarily on the ground that the contract is void. He cited the case of Awojugbagbe Light Industries v. Chinukwe (1995)4 NWLR (Part 390) Page 409 at 426 Para A-C per Onu JSC.
Counsel also submitted that the 1st Respondent, in the course of the transaction, gave notifications of the interest rates and charges to the Appellants through their various offer letters, to which the 1st Appellant, in cross-examination, had admitted that the charges or interest were expressed in the letters to him.
2nd Respondent’s Submissions
It is learned Counsel’s submission that Exhibit 1, the offer letter granting the credit facility to the Appellants, contained the following clause:
“These rates are subject to amendment at any time at the bank’s discretion without notice”.
In consequence, the Appellants who are of full age and knowledge and who are aware of the Central Bank’s rules and guidelines with respect to interest rate of facilities but who voluntarily accepted the clause reproduced above, having benefitted from the proceeds of the credit facilities should not be allowed to turn round to canvass that the interest rate was arbitrary and runs contrary to the Central Bank’s rules of interest. Counsel cited Passco International Limited v. Unity Bank Plc (2021) 7 NWLR (Part 1775) Page 224 at 255 Para B per Saulawa, JSC; Stanbic IBTC Bank Plc v. Longterm Global Capital Ltd & 4 Ors (2018) 10 NWLR (Part 1626) Page 96 at 160 Para E-F per Georgewill, JCA.
Learned Counsel contended that the duty of the Court is to enforce the terms of a contract as agreed upon by the parties, as rightly done by the lower Court. He cited the case of Statoil Ltd v. Inducon (2021) 7 NWLR (Part 1774) Page 1 at 125 Para A, G-H per Agim JSC.
He further submitted that Exhibit F heavily relied on by the Appellants has no evidential value and that the lower court was in order when it held thus;
“This Exhibit F therefore at best is an Investigation Report sourced by the Plaintiff from its paid servants. For it to be binding on the 1st Defendant, it must have their legitimate input beyond sighting documents bearing their letter headed papers. “
Counsel further submitted that the findings of the learned trial Judge on the issue of this exhibit was not appealed against and it is trite that the failure of a party to appeal against the finding of a Court will be deemed to mean its acceptance of same. He cited Olumide Braithwaite & 3 Ors v. Alhaji Bashiru Dalhatu (2016) 13 NWLR (Part 1528) Page 32 at 38-39.
RESOLUTION
It is settled law that the Court is not to make a contract for the parties but is to construe the surrounding circumstances, including written and oral statements, so as to effect the intention of the parties. Courts will seek to uphold bargains made commercially, wherever possible, and will seek to construe any document fairly and broadly without being too astute or subtle in finding defects. See Omega Bank Plc v. O.B.C. (2005) 8 NWLR (Part 928) Page 547 SC at 574-575 Para H-A; Page 576 Para B-D per Musdapher, JSC (as he then was).
The document evidencing the transaction between the parties, as agreed by all Counsel, is Exhibit A dated 12/1/2004 from the 1st Respondent to the 1st Appellant. The facility extended to the Appellant by Exhibit A was an overdraft facility of N16 Million. The facility was stated to be “due for review” on November 3rd 2004, with the words following that “in accordance with normal banking practice, remains repayable on demand and subject to revision at any time at the bank’s discretion without notice”.
By Exhibit B, also from the 1st Respondent to the 1st Appellant, dated 7/1/2005, the facility was extended and stated to be up for review on 13/12/2005. Yet again, Exhibit C3, dated 13/3/2006, extended the date for review to be 6/3/07. The 1st Respondent, however, by Exhibit C5 written to the Appellant on 12/11/2007 headed “Your Non-Performing Account Full and Final Payment of the Outstanding Debt in our Books”, which letter was stated to be in response to the 1st Appellant’s application to them on 5/6/2007, granted the 1st Appellant to pay the sum of N12 Million in full and final settlement of its indebtedness to the Bank.
As borne out from the evidence of the 1st Respondent’s witness, DW1, under cross-examination at Page 426 of the Record, as at 13/3/2006, the outstanding balance of the 1st Appellant was N12,126,301.16. At this time, the said letter, Exhibit C from the 1st Respondent “restructured the facility and approved the sum in two categories of N10 Million for overdraft and N2 Million for loan”
The witness further stated that, the said restructured amount “represented the approval limits the Plaintiffs could not transact beyond”
DW1 agreed with the Appellants’ Counsel that as at 13/3/06, the outstanding, by Exhibit C was N12 Million. The contention of the Appellant’s Counsel that even though the 1st Appellant did not withdraw any further sum and had paid the sum of N9 Million over the period of four years, which should have brought the balance to N2,906,296.16 was rejected by DW1, who explained that interest continued to run, bringing the balance, as at the date the account was classified, to N56,342,353.78. The debt sold to Amcon on 31/12/10, he said was N58,342,353.78. He agreed that from 13/3/06, when the outstanding balance was N12 Million, the 1st Appellant borrowed no further money from the 1st Respondent. The sum of N56,342,353.78, he said, was due to interest accruing.
The question, as put by the Appellant’s Counsel, is whether interests and charges on overdraft facilities cease on the date of the termination of the overdraft and should not have continued interminably.
It has been settled over time that, as the universal custom on banking, a banker has the right to charge interest at a reasonable rate on all overdrafts. This power has however been held not to be absolute.
In Integrated Dimensional Systems Ltd v African International Bank Ltd (2002) 4 NWLR Part 758 Page 660, at Pages 682-683 Para H-B, this Court, per Akintan, JCA (as he then was), held that interest payable on an overdraft was from the date the agreement came into effect until the date the facility expired.
His Lordship held further:
“As the indebtedness cannot be treated as an over-draft after 30/11/87 since such was not provided for in the agreement, it is therefore not open to the Court to award the applicable interest rate of 191/2 % per annum to cover from 1/12/87 up to the date of the judgment on 27/10/97 and the same rate of interest from the date of judgment until the amount is fully settled. This is because what the respondent was entitled to after the debt became due is damages for breach”.
In United Bank for Africa PLC v Lawal (2008)7 NWLR Part 1087 Page 613 at 633 Para B-D per Okoro, JCA (as he then was) reading the leading judgment:
“Although, I have already held above that banks can continue to charge interest on any unliquidated loan or overdraft until the customer pays up, this is not absolute. Where, as in this case, there is a fixed expiry date for an overdraft, the agreed interest rate will only be applicable from the date the agreement came into effect up to the date the facility expired as the indebtedness cannot be treated as an overdraft after the expiry date. Thus, what the bank will be entitled to after the debt has become due is damages for breach and it is not open to the Court to award the applicable interest rate per annum to cover from the day the overdraft facilities became due up to the day of judgment of the Court.”
Underlining Mine.
From the evidence of DW1, which I have reproduced excerpts of, above, it is clear from the response of DW1 that as at 13/3/2006, the amount outstanding on the account was N12,126,301.16 when the overdraft expired. Also from his evidence, the sum beyond which the 1st Appellant could not transact was N12 Million, which was the approved limit.
Applying the authorities of Integrated Dimensional Systems Ltd v African International Bank Ltd (Supra) and UBA v Lawal (Supra), the Respondents, I hold, could not continue to charge interest on the unliquidated loan or overdraft until the Appellant pays up. As there is a fixed expiry date for the overdraft, which, from the evidence of DW1 was 13/3/2006, the Appellant cannot be expected to be inflicted with all manner of interest ad infinitum. What the Respondents are entitled to, after the overdraft became due, is repayment of the said sum, with damages for breach of contract and not the sum of N56,342,353.78, which sum, from the evidence of DW1, is almost wholly made up of interest charges
I accordingly hold the sum due to the Respondents to be the sum of N12,126,301.16, which is the amount to which the 1st Appellant was overdrawn at the expiry date of overdraft.
While I agree with the Appellants’ learned Counsel that the Reconciliation Report, Exhibit F, was not an Auditor’s Report and was wrongly discountenanced by the lower Court, however, as pointed out by the 2nd Respondent’s Counsel, there is no appeal against this finding.
The law is that where a party has not appealed against a finding of the trial Court or the Court of Appeal, he is deemed to have admitted the same and cannot be heard to question that finding on appeal – Awodi v. Ajagbe (2015) 3 NWLR Part 1447 Page 578 at 599 Para A; (2015) All FWLR Part 769 Page 1129 at 1142 Para G-H per Okoro JSC; Compagnie Generale De Geophysique (Nig) Ltd v. Aminu (2015) 7 NWLR Part 1459 Page 577 at 594 Para A-B per Rhodes-Vivour JSC.
I accordingly resolve the issues for determination partly in favour of the Appellants.
With regard to the 1st declaration sought by the Appellants for retrieval of the 2nd Appellant’s title document, I agree with the lower Court that the Appellants have not proved that their consent to the offer of overdraft facilities by the 1st Respondent was obtained by economic duress.
This appeal accordingly succeeds in part.
I now proceed to the declarations sought by the Appellants.
1. The 1st declaration sought is refused.
2. The 2nd declaration with regard to the illegality of the demand by the 1st Respondent in letters dated 12/11/2007 and 18/4/2008 for payment of N12 Million is refused. The declaration of illegality is, however granted with regard to the 2nd Respondent’s letter dated 29/1/2013.
3. The 3rd declaration is granted that the Respondents are not entitled to debit the account of the 1st Appellant with unauthorized, unwarranted and illegal charges and rates of interest that are contrary to the Central Bank of Nigeria Guidelines issued from time to time.
4. The 4th – 7th Declarations sought are refused. The Appellants shall, however, be discharged of their liability to the Respondents upon payment to the Respondents of the outstanding sum on the overdraft of N12,126,301.16, following which the 2nd Appellant’s Certificate of Occupancy dated 3/2/2002 registered as No. 14 at Page 14 in Volume 60 of the Lands Registry in the office at Umuahia, shall immediately be returned to the Appellants.
5. The 8th declaration is granted, that as from the time the 1st Respondent sent to the 1st Appellant her Final Demand Notice dated 8th June, 2006, the 1st Appellant’s account with the 1st Respondent ceased to be a mercantile account and therefore ceased to attract any more interest.
The parties shall bear their respective costs.
RITA NOSAKHARE PEMU, J.C.A.: I had read before now, the lead judgment just delivered by my brother, OLUDOTUN ADEBOLA ADEFOPE-OKOJIE, JCA.
I agree with his reasoning and conclusion that the appeal succeeds in part.
I abide by the consequential order made as to costs.
IBRAHIM WAKILI JAURO, J.C.A.: I am privileged to read before now, the draft judgment written by my learned brother O. A. Adefope-Okojie, JCA I am in agreement with his lordship that the question in this appeal which demand an answer and which was raised by the Appellants’ Counsel is not in whether interests and charges on overdraft facilities cease on the date of the termination of the overdraft and should not have continued interminably. And although as was held over time that a banker has the right to charge interest at a reasonable rate on all overdraft, that position has been whittled down. The case of Integrated Dimensional Systems Ltd. V. African – Int. Bank Ltd. (2002) 4 NWLR Pt. 758 page 660 at 652-683 para. H – B it was held by this Court per Akintan, JCA (as he then was) that interest payable on an overdraft was from the date/time agreement came into effect until the date the facility expired. In the instant appeal the overdraft expired on 13/3/2006 with the amount of overdraft outstanding to be N12,126,301.16 as clearly stated by the DW1. Thus, since there is a fixed expiry date for the overdraft, the appeal cannot be contentiously charged interests after the expansion of the time stipulated.
On the whole, I agree with my learned brother as to his findings and conclusions and that the appeal succeeds in part. I concur with the orders made and that parties to bear their respective costs.
Appearances:
UCHE S. AWA, SAN, with him, CHINEDU AWA, Esq. For Appellant(s)
F.O. OKONKWO – for 1st Respondent
A.J. OKANJE, with him, I.D. NWAOHIRI – for 2nd Respondent For Respondent(s)
