Whether Statement of Account Is Sufficient Proof of Debts and Lodgments

CASE TITLE: ACCESS BANK v. BALINWO (2025) LPELR-81219(CA)

JUDGMENT DATE:  29TH APRIL, 2025

PRACTICE AREA: BANKING LAW

LEAD JUDGMENT: LATEEF ADEBAYO GANIYU, J.C.A.

SUMMARY OF JUDGMENT:

INTRODUCTION:

This appeal borders on Banking Law.

FACTS:

This appeal is against the judgment delivered by the High Court of Cross River State on June 10, 2020, in favor of the Respondent and against the Appellant. The trial Court granted all of the Respondent’s claims and dismissed the Appellant’s counterclaim.

The Respondent had originally sued the bank for unlawfully freezing his account after he had refunded money mistakenly credited to him. He sought several reliefs, including declarations that the bank’s actions were illegal, orders for the unfreezing of his account, apologies, and general and exemplary damages.

In response, the Appellant counterclaimed for $44,000 as loss from the delayed refund of the sum of $92,762.51, which was credited to the Appellant in error; ₦55 million in general damages; and ₦15 million as the cost of the suit. The trial Court rejected the counterclaim and partly granted the claims of the Appellant.

Dissatisfied with the judgment, the Appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal.

ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION:

The Court adopted the issues raised by the Appellant, thus:

1) Whether having held that the Defendant/Appellant was justified in not honoring Exhibit 7 presented in August 2016, the lower Court was right when it proceeded to hold the bank liable for breach of its banking duty.

2) Whether there exists any shred of evidence that there was a refusal to honor any withdrawal instrument on the domiciliary account presented by the Claimant/ Respondent to the Defendant/Appellant on any other date apart from that presented on 1/8/2016, when the Claimant was still indebted to the bank.

DECISION/HELD:

In conclusion, the Court allowed the appeal, set aside the decision of the trial Court and dismissed the Respondent’s claim before the trial Court.

RATIOS:

• APPEAL- GROUND(S) OF APPEAL: Effect of a ground of appeal from which no issue for determination is formulated
• APPEAL- UNAPPEALED FINDING(S)/DECISION(S): Effect of failure to appeal against the finding(s) of a Court
• BANKING LAW- DUTY OF A BANK: Duty of a bank/banker to honour cheques
• COURT- DUTY OF COURT: Duty of Court not to allow itself to be used for perpetrating injustice
• EVIDENCE- PROOF: How payment of money into an account may be proved
• EVIDENCE- UNCHALLENGED/UNCONTROVERTED
• EVIDENCE- PROOF: Whether statement of account is sufficient proof of debts and lodgments
• LEGAL PRACTITIONER- DUTY OF COUNSEL: Duty of Counsel as a minister in the temple of justice and an officer of the Court
• PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE- CONSISTENCY IN PRESENTATION OF A CASE: Whether a court can approbate and reprobate in its decision

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