n Compulaw - 1st Indigenous Digital Law Library
Disable Preloader

CaseLaw

UBN V. Umeoduagu (2004) CLR 7(k) (SC)

Judgement delivered on July 2nd 2004

Brief

  • Cause of action
  • Brief of argument
  • Banker/customer relationship

Facts

The facts of this case as gleaned from the pleadings as no evidence was called, is that the respondent purchased seven bills totaling US$121,038 from the Appellant bank in 1982 on the agreement that the Appellant should immediately transfer the said sum to the Respondent’s suppliers overseas being payment for goods purchased from them by the Respondent. The Appellant failed or neglected to remit or transfer the sum as agreed. As a result, the respondent had to arrange to pay the said sum to the overseas suppliers in 1993 when they came to Nigeria and demanded the payment from him. The Respondent then demanded from the Appellant to know the whereabouts or what happened to the bills he purchased from them in 1982, but was only requested to exercise patience. He waited patiently until 1985 when his patience was exhausted and he joined the Appellants in the search for the said sum. In the cause of his investigations, he discovered that the Appellants were keeping the sum in their account in the Central Bank of Nigeria. As a result, the Respondent demanded from the Appellants the refund of his money in US Dollars or its equivalent in Naira at that time. The Appellants failed to do so and the Respondents filed this action on the 19th of June 1996.

In the Amended Statement of Defence filed by the Appellant, paragraph 16 reads:

“Defendant will content the following preliminary points:

  • a
    The Plaintiff Statement Claim discloses… no caused of action against the defendant;
  • b
    That the plaintiff’s cause of action having accrued in 1982, is statute barred;
  • c
    That the plaintiff lacks competence to institute the action for recovery of the deposits.”

    • By this averment, the Appellant has raised a preliminary objection that no cause of action is disclosed in the Statement of Claim and that the action of the Respondent is statute-barred. The learned trial Judge, quite properly in my view, decided to hear the parties on the preliminary objection before proceeding to trial. I say this is proper in the circumstances because if he proceeding to trial. I say this is proper in the circumstances because if he decides to sustain the preliminary objection, that is the end of the matter as far as he is concerned. The learned trial Judge Amaizu J (as he then was) after hearing the parties on the objection overruled it and ruled that the Plaintiff/Respondent had a cause of action and that “in the state of the Plaintiff’s pleading the action is not statute-barred.”

    Dissatisfied with the ruling, the Appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal which by a majority decision dismissed the appeal. He now appealed here.

Issues

  • 1
    Whether having regard to Respondent pleadings, the majority of the...
    • Read More