CaseLaw
Diamond Bank Limited V. Ugochukwu (2016) CLR 2 (c) (SC)
Judgement delivered on February, 12th 2016
Brief
Facts
The facts of the case include the following:
Appellant is a commercial bank while the respondent opened and operated two accounts with appellant; one of which was a current account in the name of AL-CLEMENT with two signatories thereto. It was account No. 0712555017. The signatories were Prince Alfred Amaobi Ugochukwu and Uzoma Onuoha (also known as Unachukwu Ugochukwu), a then Special Assistant to the; Military Administrator of Imo State. Exhibit 'M’ is the specimen signature card for the account. Respondent also opened a fixed deposit account with appellant. Both accounts were for the purpose of lodging funds realized from contracts between the respondent and Imo State Secondary Education Management Board and the Primary Education Board for the production of students' identity cards.
Some cheques were issued and lodged in the two accounts while cheques for withdrawals were signed by the signatories to the account.
Later on, a dispute arose between the two signatories over the operation of the account resulting in the respondent writing exhibit 'D' to appellant in which he dropped the signature of Uzoma Onuoha. Efforts by DW1, the manager of appellant to resolve the dispute was unsuccessful. Respondent issued exhibits E.F.G. and H to some people for payment but were dishonoured and marked “incomplete mandate” as the cheque were signed by respondent alone.
The accounts of the respondent were later frozen on the orders of Imo State Task Force for the Recovery of Public Property and Funds headed by a High Court Judge. It was alleged that respondent used the contract to defraud the Imo State Government and paid the proceeds into the said accounts with the appellant. Appellant was ordered to transfer the funds in the accounts to the account of Imo State Government with Afribank Plc. The Orders are exhibits 'S' and T, The initial reluctance of appellant to comply with exhibits 'S' and T resulted in a threat by the Task Force on DW1, a manager of appellant with imprisonment as per exhibit ‘U’. Appellant consequently complied with the order of transfer of the funds in the account.
Respondent was aggrieved by the refusal of appellant to honour the cheques on ground of incomplete mandate and the orders of the Task Force freezing and transferring the funds in the accounts and consequently instituted two suits namely HON/208/97 in the Federal High Court, Holden at Port Harcourt – see exhibits ‘W’ and “U” respectively. While the two suits supra, were pending, respondent instituted the suit resulting in the instant appeal.
In the course of the trial, appellant sought leave to further amend its amended Statement of Defence to plead a standard banking practice but the court struck out the motion. At the conclusion of trial, the trial court entered judgment for the respondent, which judgment was affirmed by the lower court on appeal, resulting in the instant further appeal.