The Plaintiff was a trading company. On a regular basis, it caused to be lodged in its accounts with the Defendant, a banker, the proceeds from its business. The Plaintiff had its account at the Defendant's Lagos East Branch, 12 Broad Street, Lagos. The Plaintiff filled into a bank teller, consisting of the bank copy and the customer's copy (hereinafter referred to as the counter-foil), the amount it intended to pay in. This was recorded on both the copy (hereinafter referred to as the original) and the counter-foil. The money was taken to the; bank by the employees of the Plaintiff. The Defendant's counter-clerks or officials, in acknowledgment of the fact that the amount recorded on the original and counter-foil of the teller was paid in, affixed the bank's stamp impression on both the original and counter foil. The counter-clerk receiving the money then appended his signature or initials to both the original and counter-foil.

It was Plaintiffs case that between 1/2/87 and 1/7/89, the amount credited into its account, when contrasted with the payments shown on the counter-foils of the tellers which were used to make the payments, showed a short fall of N93,846.50. In simple language, it was the contention of the Plaintiff that the Defendant credited his account with N93,846.50 less money than was actually paid in by the Plaintiff going by the relevant counter-foils of tellers which the Plaintiff had.

The Defendant in its statement of defence denied the averments in Plaintiff's statement of claim. It contended that the impression-stamp used on the counter-foil tellers was not it's own; and that its staff did not initial any false entries contained in the counter-foil tellers. The Defendant also denied that there was any shortfall between the amount actually recorded m the original tellers and the amount credited into Plaintiffs account.

Guided by the parties' pleading, one might have thought this would be a simple issue to resolve. The Plaintiff needed to produce the counter-foils of the tellers by which the payments were made at the relevant period, with a view to showing that the amounts recorded on them, were on each occasion more than the amounts actually credited into his account. In view of the denial by the Defendant that its employees stamped and initialled the tellers, the Plaintiff would need to establish the authenticity of the counter-foils by showing that they were indeed impression-stamped and initialled by the Defendant's staff/employees.

The trial Court, from the evidence produced by the parties, came to the conclusion that the stamp impressions on the counter-foils of the tellers with which the Plaintiff made the payments were the Defendant's and that the Defendant's employees initialled the counter-foils. The Court below also agreed with this finding. The point of departure between the two Courts below was the procedure adopted in the proof of the shortfalls involved. At the trial Court, the counter-foils of tellers upon which the Plaintiff relied to show that there was a shortfall of N93,846.50 were 135 in number. Instead of showing, one after the other, the shortfall on each of the teller, the parties, with the sanction of the trial Court, agreed that the proof of the shortfall be done by a random sampling of twenties. This entailed tendering together at a time twenty counter-foils and if there was a shortfall successively on the batches of twenty, then Plaintiff's loss of 93,846.50 was assumed to have been established.

On 17-12-93, the trial Judge, in a reserved judgment, granted Plaintiff's claim for N93,846.50. The trial Judge would also appear to have awarded interest, for he concluded the judgment in these words:

Was that an award of interest or not? The language used is certainly ambivalent. However, given the issues raised before the Court of Appeal and this Court, the parties appeared to have accepted that the trial Court awarded interest in the passage reproduced above. The Defendant was dissatisfied with the judgment. It brought an appeal before the Lagos Division of the Court of Appeal. The Court below, in its judgment, partially allowed the appeal. It set aside the order awarding interest and reduced the principal sum from N93,846.50 to N68,541.50.

The Plaintiff was dissatisfied with the judgment of the Court below.