Disable Preloader

CaseLaw

Bank of the North V. Idirisu (2000) CLR 6(j) (CA)

Brief

  • Interest on loan
  • Interest rate
  • Terms of contract
  • Judgement of court

Facts

Respondent (a customer of the 1st appellant) sued the appellants seeking the following reliefs:

  • a
    A declaration that the first defendant cannot charge interest above the 11% rate initially agreed upon by the plaintiff and the first defendant without any subsequent express agreement to that effect.
  • b
    Declaration that the defendants have no legal right to sell the property of the plaintiff covered by Certificate of Occupancy No. NE/1370 lying along Shehu Laminu Way, Maiduguri by public auctions or by any means.
  • c
    Declaration that the purported notice of sale of plaintiff’s property on 24th of September, 1992 is illegal and void abinitio
  • d
    An order of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants, their agents or privies from attempting to sell or purport to sell the plaintiff’s property covered by Certificate of Occupancy No. NE/1370 along Shehy Laminy Way, Maiduguri.
  • e
    Declaration that the plaintiff is not financially indebted to the defendants jointly and severally.”

Respondent’s argued that he maintained a current account with the 1st appellant and had applied for an over-draft facility which was granted on 24 November 1978 at an agreed interest rate of 11%. This was reduced into writing and signed by the parties. The respondent further mortgaged his property as security for the loan.

Respondent then repaid N250,000 with an excess of N32.013.72 being interest on the facility. He argued further that the 1st appellant could and should not have deviated from the agreed interest.

1st appellant argued that the respondent applied for a loan of N650,000.00 out of which N250,000.00 was approved. The interest rate chargeable on the loan was 11% as contained in the approval. However, that the respondent knew that the rate chargeable was not fixed but subject to review from time to time as may be directed by the Central Bank of Nigeria.

The trial court found for the respondent and granted a perpetual injunction restraining the appellants from selling the respondent’s property.

Dissatisfied, the appellants appeal to the Court of Appeal.

Issues

  • 1
    Whether or not the judgement of the trial court has disposed of the...
    • Read More