A three-man panel in the Court of Appeal sitting in Lagos State, and led by Justice Muhammed Sirajo has upturned a
Lagos State High Court judgment of Justice O. O. Abike-Fadipe against Zenith Bank Plc.
Recall that Real Integrated & Hospitality Limited and SUBEB Gombe State had on March 8, 2022, dragged Zenith Bank Plc to court citing breach of contract.
According to Real Integrated & Hospitality Limited through its counsel, E.O Jakpa, Zenith Bank Plc had on October 7, 2011, refused it from withdrawing from its account with number 1012465427.
Delivering judgement in the ensuing suit, Justice O. O. Abike-Fadipe ordered Zenith Bank to pay an interest of 15 per cent per annum on the N872,780,522.84 from May 17, 2011, when the advanced payment guarantees expired till judgment and thereafter at the rate of 10 per cent per annum until final liquidation.
In it’s appeal No:CA/LAG/CV/262/2022, Zenith Bank’s legal team led by Prof. Fabian Ajogwu, SAN and Mr Sylva Ogwemoh, SAN, challenged Justice O. O. Abike-Fadipe’s judgement, questioning the of award N2,500,000 as the cost of the action in favour of Real Integrated & Hospitality Limited.
The team sought an order setting aside the lower court decision on the ground that it acted in full compliance with its contractual obligations in line with the Advanced Payment Guarantee (APG) contract and that the trial court was wrong.
The Court of Appeal, in a unanimous decision on November 23, agreed with the bank’s submission and resolved all the issues raised in its favour.
Apart from the appellate court setting aside the judgment of Justice Abike-Fadipe, the judge also awarded a cost of N200,000 against Real Integrated & Hospitality Limited and in favour of Zenith Bank.
The Appeal Court further stated that the lower court judgment was upturned on the ground that the trial court was wrong to have presumed that the bank withheld the full account statement of Real Integrated in the light of Exhibit C6 (the comprehensive Statement of Account of Real Integrated), which was tendered by the bank for a limited purpose, adding that there was no need for the lower court to have invoked Section 167 (d) of the Evidence Act, 2011 against the bank.
Post Views: 682
