Position of the Law as Regards the Award of Pre/Post-Judgment Interest

CASE TITLE: STANBIC IBTC BANK PLC v. ADPOBEAM (NIG.) LTD. & ANOR (2025) LPELR-80857(CA)

JUDGMENT DATE:  3RD APRIL, 2025

PRACTICE AREA: BANKING LAW

LEAD JUDGMENT: YARGATA BYENCHIT NIMPAR, J.C.A.

SUMMARY OF JUDGMENT:

INTRODUCTION:

This appeal borders on bank loan agreement.

FACTS:

This is an appeal against the judgment of the High Court of Oyo State, sitting at the Ibadan Judicial Division and delivered by HON. JUSTICE O. OLAGUNJU on the 16th of February, 2018, in Suit No.: I/701/2015.

The Appellant advanced a credit facility to the 1st Respondent which was guaranteed by the 2nd Respondent. The Respondents’ indebtedness to the Appellant came to N45,889,883.00 as of 30th April 2015. After an exchange of correspondence between the parties on the need to pay the indebtedness, the 1st Respondent through the 2nd Respondent, carried out a private forensic audit. The report showed discrepancies in arriving at the sum of N7,010,823.29k, the amount demanded by the Appellant as Respondent’s indebtedness. There was nothing to controvert the audit report of the 1st Respondent from the Appellant, however, the audit was not done jointly by the parties. The Appellant maintained that the total indebtedness is N45,889,883.00, and refusal to pay up made the Appellant institute the action against the Respondents at the trial Court.

After trial, the Court found that the Appellant failed to place before the Court a superior report to contradict the audit report and did not adduce credible evidence to rebut the illegal debts alleged by the Respondents. Consequent upon which, the Appellant’s case was dismissed. The Court held that the counter-claim was proved and granted the reliefs sought with a variation to relief 2. He then awarded the cost of N10,000.00 in favour of the Respondents.

The Appellant, dissatisfied with the decision of the trial Court, brought this appeal.

ISSUE(S) FOR DETERMINATION:

The Court considered whether the trial Court was right in dismissing the Appellants’ claim and granting the counterclaim of the Respondents

DECISION/HELD:

In conclusion, the appeal was allowed.

RATIOS:

• BANKING LAW- BANKER-CUSTOMER RELATIONSHIP: Nature of relationship where a bank customer applies for loan from the bank
• BANKING LAW- INTEREST ON CREDIT FACILITIES: Power of banks to charge interest on loans, overdrafts and other advances
• BANKING LAW- BANKER-CUSTOMER RELATIONSHIP: Whether the relationship between a bank and its customer is contractual in nature
• BANKING LAW- LOAN: Duty on a debtor to pay back loans
• BANKING LAW- INTEREST RATE: Principles guiding applicable interest rate to be charged on a facility granted
• BANKING LAW- BANKER-CUSTOMER RELATIONSHIP: Whether parties can create their own independent document that varies the basic terms that originally formed the foundation of a contract in a banking transaction for a loan
• CONTRACT- TERMS OF CONTRACT: Whether the Court can rewrite/change the contract freely entered into by parties
• CONTRACT- AGREEMENT: Whether parties are bound by the terms of their agreement
• EVIDENCE- BURDEN OF PROOF/ONUS OF PROOF: Burden on a party to prove the existence of the facts asserted
• JUDGMENT AND ORDER- AWARD OF INTEREST: Position of the law as regards award of pre-judgment interest
• JUDGMENT AND ORDER- AWARD OF INTEREST: Guiding principles on the award of interest
• JUDGMENT AND ORDER- AWARD OF INTEREST: Position of the law as regards award of post-judgment interest

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