CASE TITLE: ETHIOPIAN AIRLINES v. POLARIS BANK LTD & ANOR (2025) LPELR-80188(SC)
JUDGMENT DATE: 17TH JANUARY, 2025
PRACTICE AREA: LIMITATION LAW
LEAD JUDGMENT: OBANDE FESTUS OGBUINYA, J.S.C.
SUMMARY OF JUDGMENT:
INTRODUCTION:
This appeal borders on Limitation Law.
FACTS:
This appeal is against the decision of the Court of Appeal, Lagos Division, coram judice: Isa Ayo Salami, Raphael C. Agbo and Paul Adamu Galinje, JJCA, in Appeal No. CAL/L/409/2001, delivered on the 1st June, 2006. In its judgment, the Court affirmed the decision of the High Court of Lagos in Suit No. LD/3760/1996, delivered on the 6th June, 2000, wherein L. G. A. Marsh, J. dismissed the appellant’s suit for being statute- barred.
The appellant maintained accounts No. 36270236 and 7770571037 with the first and second respondents respectively. On the 2nd April, 1990, the appellant instructed the first respondent to issue a draft in the sum of N447,000 to the order of the appellant and that same should be paid into the appellant’s account with the second respondent. The first respondent erroneously issued the draft to the order of the second respondent which acknowledged same by endorsing its stamp thereon. While the appellant was reconciling its account at its head office in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, it discovered the error and it wrote to the first respondent and demanded for clarification about the wrong payment. After exchange of correspondence between the parties, it appeared the appellant could not make headway with the respondents. It then instructed its solicitors to write to the respondents and the first respondent replied that the matter was under investigation. Thereafter, it went into a prolonged silence. Sequel to these, the appellant prayed the trial Court, via a writ of summons and a statement of claim, for a refund of the money as well as special damages for negligence and interest accruing on the sums claimed.
The first respondent denied liability by filing a statement of defence. Thereafter, the first respondent filed an application which prayed the trial Court to dismiss the suit on the ground that it was statue-barred. The appellant filed a counter-affidavit in opposition to the application. In a considered ruling, delivered on the 6th June, 2000, the trial Court granted the motion and dismissed the suit.
The appellant was dissatisfied with the decision. Hence, the appellant approached the Court of Appeal and in a considered unanimous judgment, delivered on the 1st June, 2006, the Court dismissed the appeal.
Dissatisfied, the appellant approached the Supreme Court.
ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION:
In determination of the appeal, the Court adopted the issue raised by the appellant:
“Whether the learned justices of the Court of Appeal were right in holding that the action of the appellant is statute barred.”
DECISION/HELD:
In conclusion, the Court dismissed the appeal.
RATIOS:
- ACTION- STATUTE BARRED ACTION: Meaning, nature and purpose of statute bar; effect where an action is statute barred
- ACTION- STATUTE BARRED ACTION: How to determine the issue of statute bar or limitation law; when does an action become statute barred
- ACTION- PLEADINGS: How a court should deal with pleadings of parties
- ACTION- CAUSE(S) OF ACTION: Definition of cause(s) of action; how the court determines whether a cause of action or a reasonable cause of action exists or is shown in a case
- BANKING LAW- DUTY OF A BANK: Whether a bank is bound to obey the mandate of a customer
- CONTRACT- BREACH OF CONTRACT: When a breach of contract will be said to have been committed
- COURT- DUTY OF COURT: Duty of trial judge not to descend into the arena of conflict in a trial
- INTERPRETATION OF STATUTE- LITERAL RULE OF INTERPRETATION: Approach of Court in interpreting the clear and unambiguous words of a statute
- LIMITATION LAW- LIMITATION PERIOD: When does time begin to run for the purpose of limitation law
- LIMITATION LAW- STATUTE OF LIMITATION: Effect of a successful plea of Limitation Law
To read the full judgment or similar judgments, subscribe to Prime or Primsol
