MR. LUCKY NZEGU v. DELTA TRUST MORTGAGE FINANCE BANK LIMITED (2019)

MR. LUCKY NZEGU v. DELTA TRUST MORTGAGE FINANCE BANK LIMITED

(2019)LCN/13026(CA)

In The Court of Appeal of Nigeria

On Thursday, the 4th day of April, 2019

CA/B/261/2016

RATIO

PREJUDGMENT INTEREST: DEFINITION AND NATURE
What is a pre-judgment interest?
SANUSI J.S.C. in N.P.A. V. AMINU IBRAHIM & CO. & ANOR (2018) LPELR-44464 (SC) explained it thus:
The law is well settled that before a prejudgment interest can justifiably be awarded, a plaintiff often pleads that he is entitled to such interest and also where he so pleads it he must prove that basis for his entitlement of same by showing that it was supported either by statute or contract agreement between the parties or based on mercantile custom or on principle of equity such claim of interest is normally pleaded and proved. See A.G. FERRERO & COMPANY LTD V HENKEL CHEMICALS NIGERIA LTD (2011) LPELR -12(SC) ADEYEMI V LAN AND BAKER NIG LTD (2000) 7NWLR (PT. 663) 3 at 48. It is however a valid law that a Court can still grant pre-judgment interest on a monetary or liquidated sum awarded to a successful party even in a situation where such a party did not plead or adduce evidence in proof of such claim.PER TUNDE OYEBANJI AWOTOYE, J.C.A.

DEFAMATION: WHAT MUST BE PROVED TO HAVE A SUCCESSFUL CLAIM FOR DEFAMATION

JUSTICES

SAMUEL CHUKWUDUMEBI OSEJI Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria

TUNDE OYEBANJI AWOTOYE Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria

MOORE ASEIMO ABRAHAM ADUMEIN Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria

Between

MR. LUCKY NZEGU Appellant(s)

AND

DELTA TRUST MORTGAGE FINANCE BANK LTD Respondent(s)

TUNDE OYEBANJI AWOTOYE, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): This is the judgment in respect of the appeal filed by the claimant in suit No. EHC/230/2011 between Lucky Nzegu and Delta Trust Mortgage Finance Bank Ltd. against the judgment of Delta State High Court delivered on the 9/5/2016.
The Claimants claims against the defendants at the lower Court as follows:
a. A declaration that the introduction of excess, wrongful, unauthorized charges/debit by the defendant into mortgage loan agreement between the claimant and defendant, which excess wrongful and authorised charges/ debits is extraneous to the mortgage loan agreement is unlawful, wrongful null and void.
b. A declaration that the mortgage loan agreement between the claimant and the defendant is for a duration of 19 years with the effect from 6/10/2005 and same is yet unexpired or subsisting.
?c. A declaration that the amount in claimant?s account NO. 1555001947 which account was opened in respect of the mortgage loan with the defendant and upon which the defendant purports to ascertain the extent of liability or otherwise of claimant to defendant if any

has not crystallized the indebtedness (if any) of the claimant to the defendant and same cannot be the basis for foreclosure of the claimant?s alleged mortgage to warrant the sales, auction or ortherwise dispose of the claimant property lying situate at No. 66 Sedeco Road, Enerhen Effurun in the Uvwie Local Government Area of Delta State.
d. An Order setting aside the foreclosure processes or steps taking by the defendant to sell or auction the claimant?s property lying and situate at No. 66 Sedeco Road, Enerhen Effurun in the Uvwie Local Government Area of Delta State.
e. An order of injunction restraining the defendant its servants, agents privies and any other person from selling auctioning or disposing off claimant?s property lying and situate at No. 66 Sedeco Road, Enerhen Effurun in the Uvwie Local Government Area of Delta State in connection with the mortgage loan transaction during the duration of the loan which is 19 nineteen years with effect from 6/11/2005.
In the alternative
i. A declaration that the there is no mortgage transaction between the claimant and the defendant on account of a loan of N5,000,000 (Five

Million Naira) or any other loan
ii. A declaration that the claimant?s property at No. 66 Sedeco Road, Enerhen Effurun in the Uvwie Local Government Area of Delta State has not been mortgage to the defendant on account of any loan N5,000,000.00 (Five Million Naira) or any other loan.
iii. A declaration that the mortgage was never completed within 9(nine) months and as such the offer of loan for N5,000,000.00 (Five Million Naira) was cancelled.
iv. The sum of N50,000,000.00 (Fifty Million Naira) as special and general damages for the embarrassment, defamation and hardship suffered by the claimant as a result of the publications in newspaper and fliers, radio announcement by the defendant.

The defendants filed a counter claim claiming as follows:
?The defendant claims;
1. The sum of N2,725,839.92k (Two Million, Seven Hundred and Twenty Five Thousand, Eight Hundred and Thirty Nine Naira, Ninety Two Kobo) as interest payment arrears on the loan advanced to the claimant due as at 31st day of March 2014.
2. The sum of N3,837,800.02k (Three Million, Eight Hundred and Thirty Seven Thousand, Eight Hundred Naira and Two

Kobo) being balance of loan advanced to the claimant as at 31st March 2014.
TOTAL N6,569,639.94k (Six Million, Five Hundred And Sixty Nine Thousand, Six Hundred And Thirty Nine Naira Ninety Four Kobo) as at 31st March 2014.
3. The sum of N36,804,10k (Thirty Six Thousand, Eight Hundred And Four Naira, Ten Kobo) per month as interest on the advanced loan from the month of April 2014 until judgment is delivered together with interest at the prevailing bank rate and the payment of the sum of N36,804.10k (Thirty Six Thousand, Eight Hundred And Four Naira, Ten Kobo) per month with interest at the prevailing rate as post judgment sum until the loan and interest is finally liquidated.
4. And for such further or other orders as this honourable Court my deem fit to make in the circumstance of this case.?

After hearing the parties, the learned trial judge entered judgment in favour of the claimant on one hand and the defendant as follows:
?Consequently, judgment is entered in favour of the claimant as follows:
1. There is no enforceable legal mortgage made between the parties.
In favour of the defendant against the claimant as

follows:
2. The defendant?s publication was not defamatory
3. The sum of N4,613,004.48 plus 6% interest per annum on the said sum from 1st January 2010 until this day of judgment and thereafter 20% interest per annum on the balance thereof until the whole sum is liquidated
4. The sum of N684,012.52 plus 6% interest per annum on the said sum from 1st July 2011 until this day of judgment and thereafter 20% interest per annum on the balance until the whole sum is liquidated.?

Miffed by the said judgment the claimant filed a Notice of appeal challenging it on four grounds
The four grounds of appeal read thus:
GROUND ONE
The learned trial judge erred in law when she granted the counter-claim of the Defendant based on exhibits C and D tendered by the Claimant to show irregularity in the accounting system of the Defendant and not to show Claimant?s alleged indebtedness to the Defendant.
PARTICULARS OF ERROR
1. The exhibits C and D tendered by the Claimant and admitted by the learned trial Court was to show irregularity and as such cannot be used for any other purpose
2. The learned trial judge

speculated relying on the said exhibits C and D to grant judgment to the defendant as there was no explanation for the irregularity to enable the Court act upon it.
3. The learned trial judge having found that the Defendant did not discharge the burden of proof on it cannot rely on the weakness of the Claimant case if any to grant the counter-claim.
GROUND TWO
The learned trial judge erred in law when she grant to the Defendant the Counter-claim and 20% pre-judgment interest and 20% post judgment interest when there was no relief for such and to do so was ultra vires the power of the learned trial judge.
PARTICULARS OF ERROR
1. The defendant had no relief for 20% for pre-judgment and/ or post judgment interest.
2. The Honourable Trial judge had no power to award 20% to the judgment sum to the Defendant on discretionary ground.
GROUND THREE
The learned trial judge erred in law when she refused to grant damages for defamation against the Defendant in the face of unchallenged evidence of embarrassment and loss as a result of the publication of the Defendant in fliers and Pointer Newspaper published to the whole world.<br< p=””

</br<

PARTICULARS OF ERROR
1. There was unchallenged evidence that the Claimant house was besieged by people who wanted to buy the house at no. 66 Sedco Road Effurun.
2. There was also unchallenged evidence of loss of reputation of the Claimant which invariably led to the denial of agricultural loan from UBA Plc.
3. Libel is actionable per se.
GROUND FOUR
The decision is against the weight of evidence

The appellant later amended the said Notice of Appeal to read thus:
GROUND ONE
The learned trial judge erred in law when she granted the counter-claim of the Respondent based on exhibits ?B? and ?C? tendered by the Appellant to show irregularity in the accounting system of the Respondent and not to show Appellant?s alleged indebtedness to the Respondent.
PARTICULARS OF ERROR
1. The exhibits ?B? and ?C? tendered by the Appellant and admitted by the learned trial Court was to show irregularity and as such cannot be used for any other purpose
2. The learned trial judge speculated relying on the said exhibits B? and ?C? to grant judgment to the

Respondent as there was no explanation for the irregularity to enable the Court act upon it.
3. The learned trial judge having found that the Respondent did not discharge the burden of proof on it cannot rely on the weakness of the Appellant?s case if any to grant the counter-claim.
GROUND TWO
The learned trial judge erred in law when she grant to the Respondent the Counter-claim and 20% pre-judgment interest and 20% post judgment interest when there was no relief for such and to do so was ultra vires the power of the learned trial judge.
PARTICULARS OF ERROR
1. The Respondent had no relief for 20% for pre-judgment and/ or post judgment interest.
2. The Honourable Trial judge had no power to award 20% to the judgment sum to the Respondent on discretionary ground.
GROUND THREE
The learned trial judge erred in law when she refused to grant damages for defamation against the Respondent in the face of unchallenged evidence of embarrassment and loss as a result of the publication of the Respondent in fliers and Pointer Newspaper published to the whole world.
PARTICULARS OF ERROR
1. There was unchallenged

evidence that the Appellant house was besieged by people who wanted to buy the house at no. 66 Sedco Road Effurun.
2. There was also unchallenged evidence of loss of reputation of the Appellant which invariably led to the denial of agricultural loan from UBA Plc.
3. Libel is actionable per se.
GROUND FOUR
The decision is against the weight of evidence.

The Record of Appeal was later transmitted to this Court after which parties filed and exchanged briefs of argument.

SUBMISSIONS OF COUNSEL
APPELLANT?S BRIEF OF ARGUMENT
The appellants brief was prepared by T.O. Ajekweneh his solicitor. Learned counsel formulated two issues for determination wit:
1. Whether the lower Court was right in granting the Respondent?s Counter-claim by awarding the sum of N4,613,04.48 plus 6% per annum on the said sum from 1st January 2010 until judgment and thereafter 20% interest per annum on the balance thereof until the whole sum is liquidated, the sum of N684, 012.52 plus 6% per annum on the said sum from 1st July 2011 until judgment and thereafter 20% interest per annum on the balance until the whole sum is liquidated,

when the Respondent was unable to prove it?s counter claim which was in the realm of special damages on the face of exhibit B & C which was tendered to show that there was discrepancies in the Respondent?s accounting system.
2. Whether the publication in Exhibits H,J and K respectively to sell the appellant?s home at No 6 Sedeco Road Enerhen Effurun which caused the appellant loss of reputation hardship and denial of agricultural loan was not defamatory of the appellant, the appellant haven suffered loss of reputation, hardship, credit to attract award of damages without proof of damages.

ISSUE ONE
Learned appellant?s counsel contended that the counter claim of the Respondent against the appellant at the lower Court was in the realm of special damages and that evidence ought to be led specifically to strictly prove same which the Respondent failed to do.

Counsel submitted that special damages required strict proof and that the Court erred when it awarded damages to the Respondent notwithstanding the discrepancies in the evidence and exhibit before the lower Court, the Court holding that the appellant was indebted

to the Respondent and unilaterally granted advance interest.
In conclusion, counsel concluded that the Respondent did not prove his counter claim, that was partially granted by the lower Court. It was rather the Appellant who suffered embarrassment, loss of credit and reputation s a result of the respondent publication in Exhibit H and J which defamed the appellant an urged the Court to allow the appeal and grant his claim.

RESPONDENT BRIEF OF ARGUMENT
Respondent Brief of Argument was settled by Olurola O. Rhiogberehu counsel and deemed filed on the 14/12/16. He distilled two issues for determination.

The Respondent?s counsel argued that the Court only granted part of his counter claim based on the uncontroverted documentary evidence tendered by the appellant to show his level of indebtedness to the Respondent as reflected in Exhibit B and C. The Respondent argued that the appellant could not approbate and reprobate, having admitted by Exhibit B and C to further say he was not indebted at all. Learned counsel argued further that his counter claim was not special damages but in the realm of breach of contract and submitted that

Exhibit 1, A, B, C and X and other exhibit tendered in the counter claim of the Respondent naturally flowed from the breach of contract, the appellant had with the respondent.

Respondent submitted that on the interest on the judgment sum and post judgment interest the Court was right to award same irrespective of pleadings and proof and relied on ORDER 35 RULE 7 OF THE DELTA STATE HIGH COURT (CIVIL PROCEDURE RULES) 2009 among others.

ISSUE TWO (2)
The learned counsel argued that the publication in exhibit H, J and K respectively to sell the appellant?s property as well as the properties of other including the properties of the Respondent did not cause the appellant loss of reputation, hardship and denial of agricultural loan as the appellant was already experiencing financial difficulty and suffered no loss from the said publication that did not bear the appellant?s name and did not say that the property was being put up for sale because the appellant was in debt more so when the said publication was done by the appellant to a third party that saw nothing in it.
?
The respondent counsel submitted that Exhibit H and J were not

defamatory and that the ground upon which the appellant was predicating his alleged libel was that the property was published in error as reflected in his pleading from paragraph 1:1 and 3:21 of the appellants brief and the Court was right when it held that the publication was not defamatory.

The respondent?s counsel concluded that the appellant?s ambition was to become an instant millionaire by exploiting legal process and urged the Court to dismiss the appeal which totally lacked merit and substance.

APPELLANT?S REPLY BRIEF
The Appellant?s Reply on Point of Law is filed on the 22nd day of may 2017 and submitted on exhibit B and C referred to by the Respondent to show the level indebtedness of the Appellant that documents or exhibits were tendered and could not be construe otherwise. Exhibit B & C having been tendered to show excessive, extraneous and unauthorized charges and the discrepancies could not be admitted and utilized by the learned trial judge to show that the Appellant was indebted to the Respondent in that a counsel?s address no matter how beautifully couched could not take the place of

evidence.

The Appellant?s counsel submitted that the Respondent?s counter claim was the Respondent?s relief in the counter claim before the lower Court and not a product of inference from exhibits tended before the lower Court.

The Appellant?s counsel further submitted that the monetary claim of the Respondent could not be safely inferred, construed or calculated from exhibit B & C which were tendered to show inconsistencies in the Respondent accounting system.

Counsel replied that ORDER 35 RULE 7 OF THE DELTA STATE HIGH COURT (CIVIL PROCEDURE RULES) 2009 was mainly concerned about post judgment sum interest and not pre-judgment interest thus, the award of interest either as pre or post judgment interest could not stand where the judgment sum is a product of speculation.

Counsel submitted that the various authorities relied on by the Respondent do not suit this case as they distinguishable and were merely for academic exercise which do not concern this Court and urged the Court to allow the appeal as it could not be a meaningless victory as submitted by the Respondent.

RESOLUTION
I have deeply

considered the submissions of learned counsel on both sides as well as the contents of the record of appeal.

I am of the respectful view that the issues distilled by the learned counsel on both sides can be condensed into one sole issue in the determination of this appeal.

The sole issue is:
DOES THE JUDGMENT OF THE LOWER COURT DELIVERED ON 9/5/2016 IN SUIT NO S/230/2011; LUCKY NZEGU V DELTA TRUST MORTGAGE FINANCE BANK LTD ACCORD WITH JUSTICE AND IS THE JUDGMENT RIGHT IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE?

This sole issue in my respectful view is wide and apt enough for the just determination of this appeal. The bone of contention of the appellant at the lower Court was not that he was not indebted to the Respondent paragraphs 11 -13 of the claimants adopted statement on oath are clear on this point. They read thus:
?PARAGRAPH 11
Sequel to the request that I should open a current account with the Defendant in respect of the loan, account No. 1555001947 was opened and extraneous, wrongful, excess and unauthorized charges/debit is being carried out on the my said account, which extraneous, wrongful, excess and unauthorized

charges/debit is contrary to the agreement I have with the Defendant on the loan. The said extraneous, wrongful, excess and unauthorized charges/debit are unilaterally imposed on my account in respect of the said loan. The amount paid in by me in respect of the loan were swallowed by the extraneous, wrongful, excess and authorized charges/debit thereby not diminishing the my alleged indebtedness to the Defendant. I rely on the said statements of account from 31/10/2008 to 30/6/2011.
PARAGRAPH 12
Sometimes in May 2011, the Defendant wrote a letter to me stating that my loan account was in debit of N875,479.79 (Eight Hundred And Seventy-Five Thousand, Four Hundred Seventy Nine Naira Seventy-Nine Kobo) with the effect from April as a result of unauthorized debit. The said letter dated May 6 2011. The defendants wrote another letter dated June 9th, 2011 in which it was alleged that claimant arrears on the loan stands at N635,467.16 (Six Hundred Thirty-Five Thousand, Four Hundred Six-Seven Naira Sixteen Kobo) was sent to me by the Defendant the two letter are inconsistent are contradicted themselves which case a reconciliation of the account was required

but was not done. I rely on the said letters.
PARAGRAPH 13
The unauthorized, extraneous, wrongful, excess charges/debit had been perpetrated by the Defendant on my account since 31/10/2008 till date and base upon un-reconciled account the Defendant is at the verge of foreclosing my mortgage property on the loan.?

What he contended was that there were unauthorized extraneous, wrongful, excess charges/debit that had been perpetrated by the Defendant on his account.

His case can be further captured from the letter from his solicitor T.O. Ajekweneh & Co. dated 27/7/2011.

The learned trial counsel stated thus in the said letter:
?Having perused the correspondences and other documentary relating to or in connection with the N5,000,000 (Five Million Naira) Mortgage loan facility from your Bank and on our Client?s instruction, we noted that the statements of account from 14/03/2007 to 31/03/2009 represents the terms of the agreement between your Company and our Client but the statement of account purporting to be our Client?s statement of account from 31/10/2008 to 28/02/2011 do not represent the state of the

account of our Client as your Company introduced unilaterally unauthorized overdraft charges and COT which are extraneous to the loan agreement between your Company and our client.
Our Client instructs that he is desirous to continue to defray his indebtedness on the loan (if any) to your company upon the reconciliation of accounts as demanded herein.?

Sequel to his alleged indebtedness the Respondent sought to put the appellants property up for sale.

The Respondent counter-claimed relying on Exhibits B and C which the appellant claimed was bedeviled with false charges, wrongful and excessive deductions. See

In proving a customer?s indebtedness the Bank has a obligation to prove the overall debt balance in customers statement of account. ?Mere presentation of the customers statement of is not sufficient because the statement of account cannot on its own amount to sufficient proof to impose liability on the customer for the overall debit balance shown on a statement of account?. See YUSUFF V ACB (1986) 1-2SC HABIB NIG BANK LTD V GIFT UNIQUE (NIG) LTD (2004) 15 NWLR(PT. 986) 405;

BIEZAN EXCLUSIVE GUEST HOUSE LTD V UNION HOMES SAVINGS & LOANS LTD (2011) 7NWLR (PT.1246) 246 The defendants obligation to pay interest on a debt must be strictly proved by evidence before the plaintiff could be entitled to it see INTERNATIONAL TRUST BANK PLC V. KAUTAL HAIRU CO. LTD (2006) 3 NWLR (PT. 968) 443.
I have carefully combed through the entire proceedings as reflected in the record of appeal. With due respect to learned trial judge, I am unable to find where the appellant accepted Exhibit B and C as true reflection of his indebtedness. Rather, my understanding of the case of the appellant is that he questioned Exhibits B and C for conflicting with each other. However, the appellant accepted the statement of account covering 28/2/2007 to 31/12/2009 where the outstanding total balance on his indebtedness was put as N4,613,004.48 (see his counsel?s letter on pages 66 -67 of the record of appeal).
?I must state that the respondent did not do much to help its case. It depended heavily on the misconception that appellant accepted the statement of account as reflected in Exhibits B and C. It did not adduce sufficient evidence to prove the indebtedness of the Respondent as

required by law see INTERNATIONAL TRUST BANK PLC V HAIRU CO LTD (supra).
The implication of the above is that the sum of N4,613,004.48 as accepted by the appellant is the true indebtedness of the appellant.

INTERESTS
The learned trial judge awarded two types of interests:
The pre-judgment interest of 6% per annum and the post judgment interest of 20%.
The 6% interest is in line with the provision of the letter of offer dated 6/10/2005 which was frontloaded by the appellant himself at the lower Court.
The opening paragraph of the letter reads thus:
?Dear Sir,
We have pleasure in offering you an advance on the security of your property below:-
PROPERTY: Plot along Udu Road, Enerhen Uvwie L.G.A. AMOUNT N5,000,000
Repayable over: 19 years by monthly installment of N36,804.10 at 6% interest rate
The Total Cost is N15, 833,870?
What is a pre-judgment interest?
SANUSI J.S.C. in N.P.A. V. AMINU IBRAHIM & CO. & ANOR (2018) LPELR-44464 (SC) explained it thus:
?The law is well settled that before a prejudgment interest can justifiably be awarded, a plaintiff often pleads

that he is entitled to such interest and also where he so pleads it he must prove that basis for his entitlement of same by showing that it was supported either by statute or contract agreement between the parties or based on mercantile custom or on principle of equity such claim of interest is normally pleaded and proved. See A.G. FERRERO & COMPANY LTD V HENKEL CHEMICALS NIGERIA LTD (2011) LPELR -12(SC) ADEYEMI V LAN AND BAKER NIG LTD (2000) 7NWLR (PT. 663) 3 at 48. It is however a valid law that a Court can still grant pre-judgment interest on a monetary or liquidated sum awarded to a successful party even in a situation where such a party did not plead or adduce evidence in proof of such claim.?
As aforestated the award of 6% of interest by the lower Court is quite in order and in line with the contractual agreement between the parties.
Also the award of post judgment interest of 20% per annum by the lower Court is in accordance with Order 35 Rules 7 of Delta State High Court Civil Procedure Rules which reads:
?The Court at the time of making any judgment or Order or at any time after wards may direct the time within which the payment or other act is to be

made or done, reckoned from the date of the judgment or order or from some other point of time as the Court thinks fit and may order interest at a rate not exceeding 20% per annum to be paid upon any judgment, commencing from the date thereof or afterwards, as the case may be.?
Therefore, all arguments against the said award of interest are of no moment.

CLAIM ON DEFAMATION
The appellants contention was that the erroneous publication in exhibits H, J and K respectively to sell his house at No. 66 Sedeco Road Enerhen Effunrun caused him LOSS OF REPUTATION HARDSHIP AND DENIAL OF AGRICULTURAL LOAN and therefore defamatory of him. It is to be noted that the lower Court found the publications erroneous because the Mortgage was not made by deed and so power of sale was not available. They were not found to be erroneous because the appellant was not indebted. The appellant relied heavily on BRITISH AMERICAN INSURANCE CO LTD V SULE (2001) FWLR PT 58 at 1178 particularly at 1184.

It seems to me with due respect the appellant is unnecessarily putting the law of defamation under serious stress or strain.
?
It is a fact that the appellant is

indebted to the Respondent. It is a fact that the debt has not been settled. It is true the property of the appellant has been mortgaged pursuant to the loan transaction.

A claimant in an action for defamation must prove five ingredients:
1. That the statement was defamatory
2. That it referred to him
3. That it was published i.e. communicated to a third party
4. That it was false
5. That there are no justifiable grounds for the publication of the wards.
See ILOABACHIE V ILOABACHIE (2005) 13 NWLR (PT 943) 695; CONCORD PRESS (NIG) LTD V OLUTOLA (1999) 9NWLR PT 620) 578.
?
The publication of the sale of the house of the appellant in Exhibit H, J, AND K was faulted because the mortgage was not made by deed. I am of the respectful view that the appellant is being unrealistically and unnecessarily over-technical in his submissions on his claim for damages for defamation, My respectful view is that the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant holds no water. Can the appellant?s counsel in all seriousness say there was no justifiable grounds for the publication and that the appellant was not indebted to the

respondent as portrayed by the said publication?

lnspite of the above and in the light of the aforestated, I hold that this appeal succeeds as the sole issue is resolved in favour of the appellant.
The appeal is allowed.

The judgment of the Delta State High Court in Suit No. S1230/2011 in LUCKY NZEGU V DELTA TRUST MORTGAGE FINANCE LTD is hereby varied as follows:
Judgment is entered in favour of the claimant as follows:
1. There is no enforceable legal Mortgage made between the parties.
2. The judgment is entered in favour of the defendant against the claimant as follows:
i. The Defendant?s publication was not defamatory
ii. The sum of 144,613,004.48 plus 6% interest per annum from 1/7/2011 until the day of judgment and thereafter 20% interest per annum on the balance until the sum is liquidated.
Parties are to bear their respective costs.

SAMUEL CHUKWUDUMEBI OSEJI, J.C.A.: I have had the opportunity of reading before now a copy of the lead judgment just delivered by my learned brother T.O. AWOTOYE, JCA.
?I agree with the reasoning and conclusion contained therein to the

effect that the appeal has merit.
I also allow the appeal and I abide by the consequential orders made in the lead judgment including the order as to costs.

MOORE ASEIMO ABRAHAM ADUMEIN, J.C.A.: I read in draft form the judgment of my learned brother, TUNDE OYEBANJI AWOTOYE, JCA, just delivered. I agree that this appeal ought to be allowed and I hereby allow it in the manner set out in the leading judgment.

Appearances:

T.O. AJEKWENEHFor Appellant(s)

R.O. RHIOGBEREFor Respondent(s)

Appearances

T.O. AJEKWENEHFor Appellant

AND

R.O. RHIOGBEREFor Respondent