CaseLaw
The Respondents awarded to the Appellant a contract for the construction of the 1st Respondent's administrative complex at Shede Village, Lokoja Road, Federal Capital Territory, Abuja for the sum of N4.9 million.
Payment was instalmental based on certificates of the 1st Respondent's consultant architect, and was accordingly made up till certificate No.11 issued by the consultant architect on 19th October, 1990 in respect of which the council issued to the Appellant a cheque for the sum of N97,234.79 in payment for the work evidence by the certificate. The cheque was drawn on the councils account with the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN). The Appellant paid the cheque into its account with the Co-operative and Commerce Bank (CCB) Onitsha Branch, for clearance with the CBN but when the cheque was presented at the CBN, it was returned and marked "self-confirmation required".
The Appellant represented the cheque through its bankers to the CBN on two subsequent occasions, but on each occasion the cheque was dishonoured. The reason for the dishonour was not that the 1st Respondent had no funds in its account to cover the value of the cheque, but because the 1st Respondent did not adopt the proper procedure laid down by CBN in issuing the cheque. The 1st Respondent later complied with the procedure in issuing another cheque and this, upon presentation by the Appellant, was honoured by CBN.
Aggrieved by the circumstances surrounding the dishonoured cheque, the Appellant sued the Respondents alleging that it was due to the negligence of the council in not adopting the proper procedure prescribed for account holders with CBN that led to the breach of the contract it entered into with Respondents and as a result suffered losses.
After hearing both parties, the learned trial Judge found the Respondents liable for breach of contract and awarded damages of N5.5million with N10,000 costs against them.
Dissatisfied, the Respondents appealed to the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the trial Court on the issue of liability. It however remitted the case back to the trial Court for assessment of damages.
The Appellant was dissatisfied and it appealed to the Supreme Court-