CaseLaw
Olaleye V. Wema Bank (2010) CLR 6(p) (CA)/span>
Judgement delivered on on 8TH June, 2010
Brief
Facts
Briefly, the plaintiff's case is that he was a member of the Oyo State House of Assembly between 1979 and 1983, when sometime in 19,79 he opened a current account with the 1st defendant Bank at its Adamasingba branch, Ibadan in order to facilitate the receipt of allowances from the Oyo State Government. Sometime in 1982, he deposited his statutory certificate of occupancy dated 7lh September, 1981 and registered as No. 34 at page 34 in volume 2393 at the Lands Registry Ibadan with the 1s' defendant bank to secure a credit facility in the sum of N5,000.00. The plaintiffs certificate of Occupancy was in respect of the land on which stood a one storey building located along Oyo/Ogbomosho Road, opposite the State Hospital Oyo. The plaintiff stopped operating the account with the 1st defendant bank sometime in 1984 when following the military takeover of government of Nigeria all bank accounts of the then opticians, a class to which he belonged were frozen on the orders or the Federal Military Government. Plaintiff averred that sometime in 1985, he went into bread baking business and came into contact with one Alhaji Sheu Alatewu, who traded in bread baking flour and they became friends. Alhaji Sheu Alatewu sometime approached the plaintiff and informed the plaintiff of his inability to secure a loan facility from his bankers to further finance his business because he did not have the type of landed property documents in the form of a certificate of occupancy that his bankers needed to advance him a loan. Alhaji Sheu Alateowo asked plaintiff if he had any such document which he could lend to him. The plaintiff told Alhaji Sheu Alateowo that although he had such a title document, he had deposited it with his bankers at Ibadan to secure a loan of N5, 000.00. Alhaji Sheu Alateowo said he banked in the same bank as the plaintiff at its Orile Iganmu branch Lagos and requested that the plaintiff should assist him by arranging for the transfer of the title documents to Lagos to enable him enjoy the loan facility and return same after the loan must have been paid back in a year's time. The plaintiff agreed to do so but upon being informed that he would be required to depose to an affidavit authorizing the bank to transfer the documents to Lagos, the plaintiff refused to be drawn into such a deposition. Alhaji Sheu Alateowo then requested that plaintiff act as guarantor in respect of the loan to which the plaintiff agreed.
Sometime in 1986 the plaintiff was invited to the Orile Iganmu branch of the 1st defendant Bank by Alhaji Sheu Alateowo to signed the loan agreement as a guarantor. Plaintiff averred that although he signed the loan agreement as a guarantor, a copy was not given to him. Plaintiff averred that after signing the agreement as guarantor he heard nothing on the issue again until the 10th May. 1989 when his attention was drawn to an auction notice dated 25th April, 1989 pasted on the house the subject matter of this suit stating that the house would be sold on the 15th May, 1989. On the 12th May, 1989, plaintiff went to the head office of the 1st defendant bank, where on inquiry he was informed that the said property was mortgaged by the said Alhaji Sheu Alateowo to the 1st defendant bank to secure a loan of N25.000.00 granted him by the bank and which money he had failed to pay back.
Plaintiff averred that he learnt same day that Alhaji Sheu Alateowo had earlier on represented an affidavit authorizing the transfer of his (plaintiffs) title documents from the Adamasingba branch Ibadan to the Orile Iganmu branch of the 1st defendant purporting same to be sworn to by the plaintiff. Plaintiff also averred that the 151 defendant should have known that that affidavit was a forgery, and informed the legal officer of the 1st defendant who requested him to make a proposal for the payment of the debt now incurred on the loan by Alhaji Sheu Alateowo which second or alternative proposal by him (plaintiff i was acceptable to the legal officer of the 1SI defendant but surprisingly the sale of the plaintiff's house the subject matter of the suit was effected on the 15th May, 1989 as planned. Plaintiff averred that he thereupon approached the 1st defendant who informed him that the sale was in error. It was later he understood that the house was purchased by the 2nd defendant who is one of the tenants in the house subject matter of this suit.
The 2nd defendant carries on business as a dealer in pharmaceutical products under the name and style of Oloyin Pharmaceutical Chemists and plaintiff averred that he bought the house worth over N50.000.00 for N27, 300.00. Plaintiff averred that before the purported sale the plaintiff received no demand note from the 1st defendant and was never informed that Alhaji Sheu Alateowo had defaulted in the payment of the money he borrowed. Plaintiff averred that by accepting the proposals made by the plaintiff, the effect of which was that the house would not be sold, the lst defendant was estopped from selling the plaintiff's house and the purported sale was in bad faith. The plaintiff further averred that the purported sale of the property to the 2nd defendant was without the consent of the Governor of Oyo State whose consent ought to have been first had and obtained before the purported sale as required by the Land Use Act.
Plaintiff went on to further aver that the purported sale carried out on the instructions of the 1st defendant to the 2nd defendant is the basis of a purported deed of assignment between the 1st and 2nd defendants dated 7th June, 1989 and registered as No. 17 at page 17 in Volume 2761 at the Lands Registry without the consent of the Military Governor of Oyo State which ought to have been first had and obtained. It is the plaintiffs further averment that unless restrained, the 2nd defendant will take further steps to eject all the other tenants who are not owing the plaintiff any rent arrears from the house and take possession of it.
The case went on to full trial, during which a number of exhibits were tendered and admitted. The trial court in its judgment dismissed the claims of the appellant and granted the 2nd respondent his counter-claim.
Aggrieved by the judgment, the appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal.