- Flynote
- CL|Bank-Customer Relationship|Evaluation of Evidence|Jurisdiction
Between
EQUITORIAL TRUST BANK LTD
and
THOMAS AGADA
JUDGMENT
(DELIVERED BY BIOBELE ABRAHAM GEORGEWILL, JCA)
This is an appeal against the judgment of the Federal High Court Yola Division in Suit No: FHC/YL/CS/2/2012: Thomas Agada V. Equitorial Trust Bank Limited delivered on 15/12/2014 by B. B. Aliyu J., in which the claims of the Respondent as Plaintiff were granted against the Appellant as Defendant.
The Appellant was thoroughly dissatisfied with the said judgment and had promptly appealed to this court against the said judgment vide a Notice of Appeal filed on 11/2/2015 on two grounds of appeal. The Record of Appeal was transmitted to this court on 8/5/2015 but deemed duly transmitted on 5/10/2015. The Appellants brief was duly filed on 27/11/2015 but deemed duly filed on 2/2/2016. The Respondents brief was filed on 18/3/2016 but deemed duly filed on 12/4/2016. The Appellants reply brief was duly filed on 12/4/2016.
At the hearing of this appeal on 17/5/2016, Rabiu Ayuba Esq., who held the brief of Ugo Udoji Esq., learned senior counsel for the Appellant, adopted the Appellants brief and Appellants reply brief as their argument in support of the appeal and urged the court to allow the appeal, set aside the judgment of the court below and dismiss the Respondents suit for lacking in merit. On his part, Etim O. Akpan Esq, who held the brief of Onyemaechi Ukaegbu learned senior counsel for the Respondent adopted the Respondents brief as their argument in opposition to the appeal and urged the court to dismiss the appeal for lacking in merit and to affirm the judgment of the court below.
The Respondent as Plaintiff before the court below had instituted an action against the Appellant as Defendant on 9/2/2012 claiming several declaratory reliefs and an order of court directing the Appellant to refund to the Respondent the sum of N177, 050.00 if the transaction between the parties was perfected or the sum N151, 425. 00 if the transaction was not perfected by the Appellant. The parties filed and exchanged pleadings and the matter to trial before the court below.
The gist of the case of the Respondent was that the Respondent was a customer of the Appellant and had applied for the granting of an overdraft facility of N3, 000. 000. 00 to augment his business capital. However, the Appellant only approved the sum of N1, 500, 000. 00 for the Respondent and demanded the payment of the sum of N177, 050. 00 for the purposes of perfecting the Respondents security for the overdraft facility, which amount the Respondent paid promptly to the Appellant by bank drafts. As security for the loan facility the Respondent offered his landed property situate at 10 off Jamba Road, Damilu Layout, Yola/Numan Expressway, Yola North LGA, Adamawa State. Subsequently, the approved sum of N1, 500, 000. 00 was disbursed to the Respondent by the Appellant upon his acceptance of the terms and conditions of the offer of the said loan. At that stage it would appear all was well and good between the parties.
However, the Respondent commenced the due repayment of the loan sum together with the interest charged thereon and upon his completion of the payment of the loan sum plus the accrued interest as at 26/9/2011, the Appellant requested for the refund of the sum of N177, 050. 00 he had earlier paid to the Appellant for the perfection of the Respondents security on the ground that it was never expended by the Appellant before the loan plus interested were fully repaid by the Respondent or the sum of N151, 425. 00 being less the sum of N25, 625. 00 only that was supposed to have been expended by the Appellant for the perfection of the Respondents security. See paragraphs 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 17, 20 and 21 of the Respondents Statement of Claim and paragraphs i, iii, iv and v of the Respondents Reply to Statement of Defence at pages 8 11 and 82 90 of the record of appeal. The Respondent testified as PW1 and tendered several documents admitted in evidence as Exhibits: P1, P2, P3, P4, P5, P6 and P7 respectively. He was not cross examined and he closed his case on 14/2/2013. See pages 12- 44, 82 90 and 145 147 of the record.
On the other hand, the gist of the Appellants case was that the Respondent was granted an overdraft facility of N1, 500, 000. 00 which he duly accepted on the terms and conditions, including the execution of a direct legal mortgage over the Respondents property used as security of the said loan. The Appellant engaged the services of a Solicitor at a fee of N80, 000. 00 to process and perfect the Respondents security and which was eventually perfected and all necessary fees paid to that effect and duly receipted for by the relevant authorities and bodies. A total sum of N135, 000. 00 was expended out of the N177, 050. 00 paid by the Respondent, inclusive of the N80, 000. 00 paid as professional fees to the Solicitor that handled the perfection of the Respondents security and the balance of N39, 500. 00 was duly remitted to the Respondent vide his bank account with the Appellant.
The Appellant denied being liable in any way to the Respondent in any sum in respect of the overdraft facility it granted to the Respondent. See paragraphs 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 13 and 14 of the Appellants Amended Statement of Defence at pages 95 98 of the record. In the Appellants defence, one Silas Ozomabu testified as DW1 and tendered several documents admitted in evidence as Exhibits: DW1A, DW1B, DW1C1, DW1C2, DW1C3, DW1C4, DW1C5 and DW1D respectively. The DW1 was thoroughly cross examined and the Appellant closed its case on 20/2/2014. See pages 95 113, 155 159 of the record.
My lords, in view of the pivotal role the views and findings of the court below would play in the consideration of the real crux of this appeal challenging the evaluation and findings of the court below, forming the basis of the second issue dealing with the merit of this appeal, should the Respondents suit be found to be competent before the court below, I deem it apposite at this stage of this judgment to produce at once hereunder in extenso the part of the judgment of the court below very relevant for the consideration of the issues for determination in this appeal, thus;
In this case it must be noted that the Defendant did not deny that it collected the sum of N177, 050. 00 from the Plaintiff for the perfection of his application for the loan of N3million, which later it only approved N1, 500, 000. 00 for him. Also note that the Plaintiff main grudge against the Defendant is that the Defendant asked him to pay the money for the perfection of the transaction upfront. This perfection, from the evidence before me, means payment of Registration of mortgage, payment of taxes to Adamawa State Government etc. Plaintiff said no such payments were made until he repaid the loan of N1, 500, 000. 00 and he informed the Defendant that he did want to take more. He then realized that the sums he paid upfront after applying for the loan of N3million was not expended by the Defendant and he demanded for the refund of same..................... But the Defendant claimed, through its pleadings, that it has done the perfection. I also note that the Plaintiff complained that a large chunk of the sum of N177, 050. 00 he was asked to pay, that is N82, 000. 00 was said to be paid to Bohan Enterprises and the purpose the Plaintiff claimed was unknown. In answer to this, the Defendant said Bahon Enterprises is a warehouse for fees for Solicitors, to which the Plaintiff challenged the Defendant to prove. At this stage the burden of proof shifts to the Defendant to prove how it spent the money it collected from the Plaintiff and to also prove that contrary to the claim of the Plaintiff that the perfection was done before the grant of the facility and not after the Plaintiff had repaid the sum. This the Defendant can do by showing the court the existence of the warehouse account of Bahon Enterprises where the sum of money it claimed to pay him was deposited and/or call the Solicitors who were paid this sums of money. See Section 136(1) of the Evidence Act..................................The evidence of DW1 on this issue was wobbly and not consistent at all. He admitted that the Defendant collected the sum of money based on the initial application of the Plaintiff for N3millio. He also claimed that part of the sum was returned to the Plaintiffs account only after this suit was filed and the Defendant was served with the courts processes. In this case, I find that the Plaintiff evidence is stronger and he has proved his case on the balance of probabilities. I therefore, grant all his reliefs in terms of the alternative prayer in relief 4 he has against the Defendant. The Defendant is hereby ordered to immediately refund to the Plaintiff the sum of N151, 425. 00 as part of the N177, 050. 00 which it collected and did not expend. This is less the sum the Defendant is supposed to pay for the perfection of the loan transaction as stated by the Plaintiff. The sum of N50, 000. 00 is awarded to the Plaintiff as general damages for withholding the Plaintiffs money without just cause
See pages 181 183 of the record.
In the Appellants brief, Ugo Udoji Esq., learned senior counsel for the Appellant had distilled two issues for determination from the two grounds of appeal, namely:
1. Whether the court below being a Federal High Court was right in assuming jurisdiction over the matter which bordered on banker customer relationship? (Distilled from Ground 1)
2. Whether from the totality of evidence before the court below, its judgment was based on preponderance of evidence and or on the balance of probabilities? (Distilled from Ground 2)
In the Respondents brief, Onyemaechi Ukaegbu Esq., learned senior counsel for the Respondent had also distilled two issues for determination from the two grounds of appeal, namely:
1. Whether the trial court had jurisdiction to hear and determine the matter which concerns a dispute between an individual customer and his bank in respect of a transaction between them? (Distilled from Ground 1)
2. Whether the Plaintiff (now Respondent) proved the case at the trial court to entitle him to judgment and the reliefs granted? (Distilled from Ground 2)
I have given due considerations to the pleadings and evidence, both oral and documentary as led by the parties as in the printed record. I have also calmly reviewed the judgment of the court below and considered the submissions of counsel to the respective parties. It does appear o me that both issues as distilled by the respective learned senior counsel are not only similar but also apt. However, the two issues as distilled by the Respondents counsel appears to me to be more precise and they are hereby adopted and set down as the two issues for determination in this appeal, a consideration of which, in my view, would invariably involve a due consideration of the two issues as distilled by the Appellants counsel. The two issues for determination are therefore as follows:
1. Whether the trial court had jurisdiction to hear and determine the matter which concerns a dispute between an individual customer and his bank in respect of a transaction between them?
2. Whether the Respondent proved the case at the trial court to entitle him to judgment and the reliefs granted?
I shall proceed anon to consider these two issues for determination ad seriatim, commencing with the first issue for determination.
ISSUE ONE
Whether the trial court had jurisdiction to hear and determine the matter which concerns a dispute between an individual customer and his bank in respect of a transaction between them?
Learned senior counsel for the Appellant submitted that by the provisions of Section 251(1)(d) of the Constitution of Nigeria 1999 as amended and the proviso thereto, the subject matter of the Respondents suit anchored on the contractual relationship between the Appellant, a bank and the Respondent, its customer was outside the jurisdiction of the court below being a Federal High Court to entertain and determine being bereft of any jurisdiction to do so. Counsel relied on Okezie V. Nigerian Stock Brokers Ltd. (2008) All FWLR (Pt. 442) 1192 @ p. 1204; Njokonye V. MTN Nig. Communications Ltd. (2008) All FWLR (Pt. 413) 1343 @ p. 1368.
Learned senior counsel for the Appellant further submitted that in any matter in which the Federal High Court enjoys concurrent jurisdiction with the State High Court, it can only exercise jurisdiction if the parties include the Federal Government or any of its agencies and contended that the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court unlike the State High Court is not to be implied but is specifically provided for and urged the court to resolve the first issue in favour of the Appellant. Counsel relied on African Newspapers & Ors. V. FRN (1985) 2 NWLR (Pt. 13)71.
On his part, learned senior counsel for the Respondent submitted that the contention by the Appellants counsel that the Federal High Court lacked the jurisdiction to entertain the Respondents suit by virtue of Section 251 (1) (d) of the Constitution of Nigeria 1999 as amended and the proviso thereto was most misconceived and contended that the proviso merely provides for concurrent jurisdiction of the Federal
High Court and the State High Court over matters relating to transaction between an individual customer and his bank as in the present appeal. Counsel relied on NDIC (Liquidators of Allied Bank of Nigeria Ltd.) V. Okem Enterprises Limited) & Anor (2004) 10 NWLR (Pt. 880) 107 @ pp. 183, 191 192.
Learned senior counsel for the Respondent further submitted that by the said proviso the Federal High Court which shares jurisdiction with the State High Court over the matters stated therein, which includes the Respondents claims, was clothed with jurisdiction to entertain and determine the Respondents suit as it did and contended that all the cases relied upon by the Appellants counsel were inapplicable and do not avail the Appellant and urged the court to resolve the first issue in favour of the Respondent.
In the Appellant reply brief, learned senior counsel for the Appellant submitted that the Respondents claim against the Appellant was founded on breach of and therefore outside the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court and reiterated his reliance on all the cases he had earlier relied in as being apposite to the instant appeal.
Now, by Section 151(1)(d) of the Constitution of Nigeria 1999 as amended, the Federal High Court is conferred with exclusive jurisdiction over all the matters covered by paragraphs (a) (s) of Subsection (1) of Section 251 of the Constitution of Nigeria 1999 as amended. Thus in matters falling under the provisions of Section 251(1)(a) (s) of the said 1999 Constitution as amended, the Federal High Court exercises jurisdiction to the exclusion of all other courts in the land notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the said Constitution of Nigeria 1999 as amended.
The above provision poses not much difficulty in its interpretation and has happily been blessed with the profound pronouncements of the Apex Court and this Court in a plethora of decided cases as are replete in the law reports. However, the crux of the first issue for determination in this appeal and which has over the years confronted the courts is the proper interpretation of the proviso to paragraph (d) of Subsection (1) of Section 251 of the Constitution of Nigeria 1999 as amended as to its purport and scope of application.
In the instant appeal, while it is the vehement contention of the Appellants counsel that the court below lacked the jurisdiction to entertain the claims of the Respondent bordering on contractual transaction between the Appellant, a bank and the Respondent, its customer, by virtue of the proviso to Section 251(1)(d) of the Constitution of Nigeria 1999 as amended, being a Federal High Court and thus rendered the judgment of the court below liable to be set aside having been given without requisite jurisdiction, the Respondents counsel had with equal vehemence contended on a proper interpretation of the proviso to paragraph (d) of Subsection (1) of section 251 of the said 1999 Constitution as amended, the Federal High Court has concurrent jurisdiction with the State High Court over the subject matter of the Respondents claim and thus the judgment entered thereon by the court below was one given in the exercise of its requisite jurisdiction and therefore valid.
My lords, happily this is an area of the law, as I had earlier observed in this judgment, blessed with emphatic pronouncements of the Apex Court, the Supreme Court and this Court as to the correct interpretation of the provisoto paragraph (d) of Subsection (1) of Section 251 of the 1999 Constitution as amended. It is therefore, to some of these decided cases, I shall now turn my attention but first what does the said proviso provides?
By Section 251 (1) (d) of Constitution of Nigeria 1999 as amended, it is provided thus:
251: Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Constitution and in addition to such other jurisdiction as may be conferred upon it by an Act of the National Assembly, the Federal High Court shall have and exercise jurisdiction of any cause in Civil Causes and Matters
(d): Connected with or pertaining to banking, banks, other financial institutions, including any action between one bank and another, any action against the Central Bank of Nigeria, arising from banking, foreign exchange, Coinage, legal tender, bills of exchange, letters of credit, promissory notes and other fiscal measures;
Provided that this paragraph shall not apply to any dispute between an individual customer and his bank in respect of transaction between the individual customer and the bank,
Now, it is common ground between the parties that the claims of the Respondent as endorsed on the writ of summons filed on 9/2/2012 and as averred in the Respondents Statement of Claim fall squarely within the provisions of the proviso to paragraph (d) of Subsection (1) of Section 251 of the 1999 Constitution as amended. There is no iota of dispute on this fact and I so hold. So has the Federal High Court the jurisdiction to entertain and determine the Respondents claims as it did in the instant case?
In the cases of Okezie V. Nigerian Stock Brokers Ltd. (supra); Njokonye V. MTN Nig. Communications Ltd. (supra), having taken time to read through the law reports, it would appear that the issue of the proviso to paragraph (d) of Subsection (1) of Section 251 of the 1999 Constitution as amended was not directly in issue as the issue involved in those cases was whether a claim involving contractual relationship is one within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal High Court by virtue of Section 251(1) of the 1999 Constitution of Nigeria as amended? In both cases, the issue was resolved in the negative. It is thus very pertinent to note, as urged upon this court by the learned senior counsel for the Respondent, that none of these cases involved a claim between an individual customer and his bank as specifically provided for in the proviso to paragraph (d) of Subsection (1) of Section 251 of the 1999 Constitution of Nigeria as amended.
In the instant appeal, it is not the contention of any of the parties that the subject matter of the Respondents claim was within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal High Court as both parties are ad idem that it is not within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal High Court to entertain the Respondents claim to the exclusion of other courts in the land. Both parties are also agreed that the Respondents claim is squarely within the proviso to paragraph (d) of Subsection (1) of Section 251 of the 1999 Constitution of Nigeria as amended.
In the light of the limited scope of the issue in contention between the parties in this appeal as to whether or not by the proviso to paragraph (d) of Subsection (1) of Section 156 of the 1999 Constitution of Nigeria as amended the subject matter of the Respondents claim is within the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court, I cannot but agree completely with the correct and unassailable submission by learned senior counsel to the Respondent that the cases relied upon by the Appellants counsel, which cases I have also taken time to peruse, are not of any help and thus are of no avail to the Appellant in his contention on the first issue for determination and I so hold.
On his part, the learned senior counsel for the Respondent had also relied on some decided cases, of which I have also taken time to peruse and it would appear that these decisions are right on point to the first issue under consideration.
In NDIC (Liquidators of Allied Bank of Nigeria Ltd) V. Okem Enterprises Limited & Anor (supra), the Supreme Court frontally dealt with the provision of the proviso to paragraph (d) of Subsection (1) of Section 251 of the 1999 Constitution of Nigeria as amended, which I must observe is directly in issue in the first issue for determination in this appeal, and emphatically pronounced per Uwaifo JSC, thus:
Clearly the proviso in question in Section 251(1)(d) to put it in simple analysis, says the Federal High Court will have exclusive jurisdiction in having matters but when waht is involved is individual customer and his bank transaction, the Federal High Court shall not have exclusive jurisdiction. Understandably, that was to recognise the jurisdiction the State High Courts had been exercising in such matters which Section 272 (1) of the Constitution impliedly preserves. The High Court of a State can only exercise jurisdiction in any aspect of such special matters to the extent that the proviso to Section 251(1)(d) permits. The said proviso cannot be interpreted to have the effect of conferring exclusive jurisdiction on the State High Court and completely taking away the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court to entertain causes or matters relating to individual customer and bank transactions
My lords, to drive home the point being made here to the effect that the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court was not ousted by the proviso to paragraph (d) of Subsection (1) of Section 251 of the 1999 Constitution as amended in favour of only the State High Court but only made the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court concurrent with the jurisdiction of the State High Court to entertain and determine matters touching on the said proviso, let us hear the wise words of the Supreme Court still in the case of NDIC V. Okem Enterprises ltd (supra) but this time per Kutigi JSC (as he then was but later CJN) in his contribution inter alia thus:
The question which easily comes to mind is this: Does this proviso excluded the Federal High Court from exercising jurisdiction in the area contained therein, or is the Federal High Court not allowed to exercise exclusive jurisdiction in the area and in which case it shares jurisdiction concurrently with other Courts, in this case the State High Courts? The proviso to my mind is intended not to deny the Federal High Court of jurisdiction in the matter or area stated. The proviso is an exception to the exclusively the rule embodied in Section 251 (1) (d). In other words, it is a proviso to the provision of paragraph (d) of Section 251 (1) only. Now, it should be appreciated that the words or provision any dispute between an individual customer and his bank in respect of transactions between individual customer and the bank covered by the proviso is an area already covered by the main paragraph (d) itself before the proviso. It will therefore, be unreasonable to read the proviso as totally denying jurisdiction in an area where the main paragraph (d) has already conferred jurisdiction. What the proviso has done in my view therefore, is simply to remove exclusive of jurisdiction in the area stated in the proviso of paragraph (d). In other words, the Federal High Court can exercise concurrent jurisdiction in the area stated or mentioned in the proviso
The Supreme Court has spoken in very clear and lucid voice on the correct interpretation of the proviso to paragraph (d) of Subsection (1) of Section 251 of the 1999 Constitution of Nigeria as amended and I have heard. There is therefore, nothing left to ponder on or agitate my mind on this issue than to simply bow to the ingrained wisdom in the words of the Supreme Court on this issue and so I bow! By the time tested and honoured doctrine of stare decisis this court, being lower in the hierarchy of courts to the Supreme Court, is bound without any option or exception to obey and must apply the interpretation already given to the proviso to paragraph (d) of Subsection (1) of Section 251 of the 1999 Constitution of Nigeria as amended to the resolution of the first issue under consideration in this judgment. See Amimike Invetsment Ltd. V. Ladipo (2008) 45 WRN 92 @ p. 97, where the Supreme Court had pronounced thus:
Where a lower court in the judicial hierarchy is called upon to interpret the provisions of Statute, which provision had already been interpreted by a higher court in the hierarchy, the formers task is made easier since by the doctrine of stare decisis the lower court must abide by the interpretation given by the superior court in the earlier case
See also Achebe V. Nwosu (2012) FWLR (Pt. 106) 1000 @ pp. 1019 1020; Odugbo V. Abu ( 2011) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1732) 45; Usman V. Umaru (1992) 1 NWLR (Pt. 254) 377; Young V. Bristol Aeroplane Co. Ltd. (1944) 2 All ER 293 @ p. 300.
I am thus embolden and fortified in my reasoning and I so hold that by virtue of the proviso to paragraph (d) of Subsection (1) of Section 251 of the 1999 Constitution as amended, the Federal High Court has concurrent jurisdiction with the State High Court to hear and determine any matter falling within the proviso to paragraph (d) of Subsection (1) of Section 251 of the said 1999 Constitution of Nigeria as amended. Thus, the Federal High Court, though it has no exclusive jurisdiction over the matters as stated in the said proviso, retains its concurrent jurisdiction with the State High Courts over such matters as are covered by the said proviso. See Gabisal Nigeria Ltd & Anor. V. NDIC (2008) LPELR 4177 (CA). See NDIC V. Okem Enterprises Ltd & Anor (2004) All FWLR (Pt. 210) 1176 or (2004) 10 NWLR (Pt. 880) 107 @ pp. 183, 191 192; FMB of Nigeria V. NDIC (1992) 2 NWLR (Pt. 591) 333; Societe Bancaire Nig. Ltd. V. De Linch (2004) 11 12 SC 75;
In bringing the consideration of the first issue to a close, I am aware and averted my mind to the subtle submission of Appellants counsel that in all matters in which the Federal High Court has concurrent jurisdiction with the State High Court it can only exercise such concurrent jurisdiction if the parties include the Federal Government or any of its agencies. Curiously, as ambitious as this proposition of law was as made by the Appellants counsel, no single authority, either statutory or judicial was relied upon in support thereof and I can very well understand the reason why it was so. It is simply because indeed none such authority exists in support of such a sweeping proposition of law and none was revealed to me in the course of my in-depth research in the preparation for the writing of this judgment. I therefore, do not accept that proposition as representing the correct statement of the law as it is not well founded.
At any rate, and on the contrary, the issue of what as between the subject matter of a claim and the status of parties would determine the jurisdiction of the courts, including the Federal High Court, has long been well settled by the courts. The law is that it is the subject matter and not necessarily the status of the parties that would ordinarily determine the jurisdiction of the court. See Felix Onuorah V. Kaduna Refining and Petrochemical Co. Ltd. (2005) 6 NWLR (Pt. 921) 393, where Akintan JSC, had emphatically pronounced thus:
The question whether the Respondent is a subsidiary or agent of NNPC or not has no role when a consideration of the jurisdiction of the court is being made
I therefore, have no difficulty resolving the first issue for determination in the positive in favour of the Respondent against the Appellant and hold firmly that the Federal High Court, the court below, had the jurisdiction, though concurrent and not exclusive, to hear and determine the Respondents claims against the Appellant as it did in the judgment now appealed against to this court in this appeal.
ISSUE TWO
Whether the Respondent proved his case at the trial court to entitle him to judgment and the reliefs granted?
Learned senior counsel for the Appellant submitted that the court below failed to properly evaluate the evidence, both oral and documentary as led by the parties before finding for the Respondent and contended that the copious documentary evidence tendered by the Appellant and which showed that the Respondent did not make out any claims against the Appellant were completely ignored by the court below and thus leading to the perverse finding that the Respondent had proved his case on a balance of probabilities. Counsel relied on Union Bank Of Nigeria Ltd. V. Prof. Ozigi (1994) 3 NWLR (Pt. 385) 400.
Learned senior counsel for the Appellant further submitted that on the copious documentary evidence of the Appellant, particularly Exhibits DW1A, DW1B and DW1C1 C4, the Appellant satisfactorily discharged the burden placed on it by the court below to show how the money it collected from the Respondent for the perfection of his security for the loan granted to him was duly expended and how the deed of legal mortgage was duly perfected and contended that the court below failed to evaluate any of the copious documentary evidence of the Appellant but simply preferred the oral unsupported evidence of the Respondent over and above the unchallenged documentary evidence of the Appellant and thus arrived at the perverse finding that the Respondent proved his claims against the Appellant. Counsel relied on Union Bank of Nigeria Ltd V. Prof Ozigi (supra) @ p. 400; Lasisi Ogbe V. Sule Asade (2010) All FWLR (Pt. 510) 612 @ p. 632; Egharevba V. Osagie (2010) All FWLR (Pt. 513) 255 @ p. 277.
Learned senior counsel for the Appellant also submitted that the court below in finding that only the sum of N25, 620. 00 was supposed to have been expended as claimed by the Respondent without any documentation proof offered as against the copious documentary proof of actual expenditures by the Appellant for the perfection of the Respondents security acted clearly against the weight of the evidence led and arrived at perverse findings that the Respondent proved his claims against the Appellant, which finding ought to be set aside and urged the court to so set it aside. Counsel referred to the Blacks Law Dictionary 7th Edition @ p. 1555 and relied on Onu V. Idu (2006) All FWLR (Pt. 328) 691 @ p. 716; Mini Lodge Limited V. Ngei (2010) All FWLR (Pt. 506) 1806 @ p. 1834; Oshie SAN V. Okin Biscuits Ltd. (2010) All FWLR (Pt. 528) 825 @ pp. 832 833; Iheanacho V. Chigere (2004) All FWLR (Pt. 226) 204 @ pp. 223 224; Adebayo V. Shogo (2001) All FWLR 739 @ p. 744; Dagayya V. The State (2006) All FWLR (Pt. 308) 1212 @ pp. 1230 1231.
On his part, learned senior counsel for the Respondent submitted that the Respondent through credible cogent evidence placed before the court below proved his case against the Appellant and was thus entitled to the reliefs cl