Unveiling the Key to Debt Recovery Success: Is a Statement of Account the Ultimate Weapon?

CASE TITLE: IYANAM v. UBA PLC & ANOR (2024) LPELR-61550 (CA)

JUDGMENT DATE: 5TH JANUARY, 2024

JUSTICES: HAMMA AKAWU BARKA, JCA
BALKISU BELLO ALIYU, JCA
PETER CHUDI OBIORAH, JCA

DIVISION: CALABAR

PRACTICE AREA: EVIDENCE

FACTS:
This is an appeal against a judgment delivered by the High Court of Akwa Ibom State in a defamation suit.

The appellant, who maintains a banker-customer relationship with the 1st respondent, sued over a publication listing him as a loan defaulter. He sought damages and an apology. The respondents raised a defence of justification and counter-claimed for the repayment of a loan plus interest. After trial, the court dismissed the appellant’s claim and awarded the respondent the sum of the unpaid loan plus interest, along with costs. Dissatisfied, the appellant appealed the decision.

ISSUE(S) FOR DETERMINATION:

The Court determined the appeal based on the following issues:

1) Whether upon rejecting the Statement of Account sought to be tendered by the 1st Respondent pursuant to Section 84 of the Evidence Act, 2011, there was any valid evidence with which the learned trial Judge could have come to the decision that the Appellant was indebted to the 1st Respondent.
2) Whether there was any evidence before the learned trial Judge enabling him to arrive at a decision whether the Plaintiff/Appellant received the amount of money claimed as owing to the 1st Respondent or at all.
3) Whether the failure of the 1st Respondent to be definite on the issue of whether the vehicle, the subject matter of the loan, was a Toyota Camry or a Toyota Hiace Bus, was not fatal to the integrity of the transaction it so desperately relied upon.

COUNSEL SUBMISSIONS:
The appellant argued that the trial Court rejected the bank statement of their account, which was crucial to the case, on the grounds that it didn’t comply with Section 84 of the Evidence Act. However, the Court later held that the appellant was indebted to the 1st respondent, which the appellant found contradictory.

They asserted that proof of debt and recovery requires proper procedure, as shown in the case of Anny Asikpo v. Access Bank Plc. The appellant’s counsel emphasized that a bank statement is essential in establishing the relationship between a banker and customer, and a loan agreement without evidence of fund disbursement or receipt is worthless. They referred to Ogboja v. Access Bank Plc and Wema Bank Plc v. Osilaru to support this argument.

The appellant further claimed that since the statement of account was rejected, it shouldn’t have been considered by the Court in delivering the judgment, citing Okafor v. Effiong and Kekong v. The State.

On the other hand, the respondents’ counsel contended that the appellant received a loan for a vehicle, substantiated by various documents including a delivery note, credit sales invoice, and formal receipt.

They referred to Tilley Gyado & Co (Nig) Ltd v. Access Bank Plc to support their assertion. The respondents’ counsel argued that once a debt is admitted, judgment should be entered for the sum admitted, citing relevant cases such as Nneji v. Chukwu. They claimed that the appellant’s actions, such as demanding damages and filing an action for a lesser amount than the claim, demonstrated their awareness of their indebtedness. The respondents’ counsel contended that the trial judge was not wrong in entering judgment for the respondents based on the evidence presented, including the demand letter and the publication by the 1st respondent. They argued that the appellant’s indebtedness was proven through the evidence provided by the 1st respondent’s Relationship Officer, Atim Okwong. They cited several cases, such as Daudu v. F.R.N. and Impact Solutions Ltd v. Int’l Breweries Plc, to support their position that the statement of account should not have been rejected as evidence.

DECISION/HELD:
In the final analysis, the Court dismissed this appeal. The judgment of Hon. Justice Winifred Effiong delivered on October 25, 2019 in Suit No. HU/245/2016 was accordingly affirmed.

RATIO:
EVIDENCE – PROOF: Whether failure to tender a statement of account will be fatal to an action for recovery of debt; whether a statement of account by itself will be sufficient proof to fix liability on the customer for the overall debit balance shown on the account

“The main contention of the parties under issue one for determination is whether there was basis or evidence on which the trial Court could have found for the 1st respondent’s counter-claim having rejected the admission of the statement of account in evidence. I bear in mind that the rejected statement of account is not the only documentary evidence produced by the 1st respondent at the trial. As was held by Georgewill, JCA, in Okpu v. Trust Bond Mortgage Bank Plc (2021) LPELR-54554(CA) (Pp. 31–32 paras. –C),:

“Thus, it cannot be the law, as vehemently contended by the learned counsel for the Appellant that, in all cases of action for recovery of debt by a creditor, the debtor’s Statement of Account must be tendered and that failure to do so would be fatal. Rather, once a debtor admits, as the Appellant admitted, that the creditor did advance to him the money, the subject matter of the debt recovery action, the debtor’s Statement of Account is not a sine qua non for finding of liability against the debtor. Thus, in law, with or without any admission of debt and/or presence or absence of a Statement of Account, once a creditor leads sufficient credible evidence in proof of the indebtedness of the debtor on a balance of probabilities or preponderance of evidence as required of him by law, he will succeed notwithstanding whether he tendered the debtor’s Statement of Account in evidence or not or whether the debtor admitted his indebtedness or not.”

I am in agreement with the above statement of the law. This position is as a result of the settled law that a statement of account cannot, on its own, amount to sufficient proof to fix liability on the customer for the overall debit balance shown on the account. The law expects the 1st respondent who is claiming that the appellant is indebted to her, to adduce both documentary and oral evidence explaining how the debt arose and how the overall debit balance was arrived. This is expected to be done through an official who is familiar with the accounts. See Bilante International Ltd v. Nigerian Deposit Insurance Corporation (2011) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1270) 407, Nagebu Company (Nig.) Ltd v. Unity Bank Plc (2014) 7 NWLR (Pt 1405) 42, First Bank of Nigeria Plc v. Management Education and Training Ltd (2019) LPELR 47502(CA) and Union Bank of Nigeria Ltd v. Tenosys Global Konnect Ltd (2020) LPELR 47936(CA).” Per OBIORAH, J.C.A.

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