Circumstances Where a Bank Will Be Held to Have Been Negligent/Breached the Duty of Care Owed to Its Customer(s)

CASE TITLE: GTB PLC v. YUNUSA (2024) LPELR-62900(CA)
JUDGMENT DATE: 19TH AUGUST, 2024
PRACTICE AREA: BANKING LAW
LEAD JUDGMENT: OKON EFRETI ABANG, J.C.A.

SUMMARY OF JUDGMENT:

INTRODUCTION:

This appeal borders on negligence by the bank toward its customer.

FACTS:

This appeal is against the judgment of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja, delivered on 8/3/2022, Coram Halilu J.

The Respondent is the Appellant’s customer. Sometime in February 2020, the Respondent went to the Keffi branch of the Appellant in Nasarawa State to carry out some banking transactions. He made several attempts to carry out the transactions in his accounts domiciled with the Appellant at its Keffi Branch, Nasarawa State, which proved abortive as the said accounts were completely inaccessible.

On 4/2/2020, the Respondent went to the Appellant’s branch located in the central business area of Abuja, wherein the Appellant’s customer care officer informed the Respondent that the Appellant placed restrictions on the Respondent’s accounts domiciled with the Appellant. The Respondent was then shown the Garnishee Order Nisi issued by District Court Mpape Abuja attaching the accounts of the Respondent domiciled with the Appellant directing it to show cause why funds in the said accounts should not be used to satisfy the Judgment debt in Suit No. CV/83/2019: between JANUS CONSULTING (NIG.) LIMITED VS MONACHI GLOBAL CONCEPTS LIMITED & ORS.

The Respondent then said that he explained to the Appellant’s customer care officer that he is not a party to the suit leading to the judgment of the District Court Mpape Abuja that led to the Garnishee Order Nisi being made attaching his accounts domiciled in the Appellant. The Appellant’s customer care officer later informed him that nothing could be done about it and that his accounts would remain attached till the Order Nisi was set aside by the District Court Mpape. Being dissatisfied with the response he got from the Appellant’s agent, he decided to engage the services of a legal practitioner to file an application for joinder in the suit pending at the District Court Mpape in Suit No. CV/83/2019 that led to the Garnishee Order Nisi being made. The Respondent then applied to the District Court Mpape to set aside the Garnishee Order Nisi. The District Court upon the application filed by the Respondent to set aside the Order Nisi, the restrictions placed on his accounts. The Respondent further made efforts to compel the Appellant to compensate him. The failure of the Appellant to compensate the Respondent led him to file the suit at the High Court of Federal Capital Territory, claiming the reliefs sought in the amended statement of claim.

The trial Court having considered the case of both parties in a reserved judgment delivered on 8/3/2022 entered judgment in favour of the Respondent though in part. ​

Being dissatisfied with the judgment of the trial Court, the Appellant filed this appeal

ISSUE(S) FOR DETERMINATION:

The Court considered:

“Whether from the evidence and all materials placed before the Court, the learned trial Judge was right in granting the reliefs sought by the Respondent.”

DECISION/HELD:

In the final analysis, the appeal was dismissed.

RATIOS:

• APPEAL- APPEAL AGAINST DECISION/FINDING OF COURT: Effect where there is no decision of the lower Court upon which to base an Appeal
• APPEAL- FRESH POINT(S) ON APPEAL: Whether the issue of jurisdiction can be raised for the first time on appeal without leave of Court
• APPEAL- FRESH POINT(S) ON APPEAL: Whether a party can raise fresh issue(s) on appeal without leave of Court; effect of failure to obtain leave
• BANKING LAW- BANKER-CUSTOMER RELATIONSHIP: Circumstance(s) where a bank will be held to have been negligent/breached the duty of care owed to its customer(s)

To read the full judgment or similar judgments, subscribe to Prime or Primsol