3PLR – NATIONAL BANK OF NIGERIA LTD V. SAVOL WEST AFRICA LTD
POLICY, PRACTICE AND PUBLISHING, 3PLR, LAW REPORTS
[PDF copy of this judgment can be sent to your email for N300 only. Just order through lawnigeria@gmail.com and info@lawnigeria.com or text 07067102097]
NATIONAL BANK OF NIGERIA LTD
V.
SAVOL WEST AFRICA LTD
COURT OF APPEAL
(LAGOS DIVISION)
TUESDAY, 22ND FEBRUARY, 1994
3PLR/1994/75 (CA)
OTHER CITATIONS
3 NWLR (Pt. 333) 435
BEFORE THEIR LORDSHIPS
UWAIFO, JCA
AYOOLA, JCA
PATS ACHOLONU, JJ.C.A.
REPRESENTATION
MAIN ISSUES
BANKING – Banker/customer relationship – countermanding payment -issue of – when many arise – Bills of Exchange Act, Cap. 35 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 1990, section 75 considered.
BANKING – customer’s right to countermand payment – whether exercisable when use of cheque not involved in transaction.
BANKING – ESCROW account – meaning of:
FACTS:
The respondent and one Nimanteks Associates Ltd. entered into a contract whereby the respondent agreed to be clearing agents of some commodity then awaiting customs clearance at the Apapa Wharf Complex. The contract provided that the respondent was to be paid for its services in two instalments through the appellants bank. The appellant confirmed the arrangement to the respondent by its letter of 4th August, 1986. When the respondent completed its assignment it demanded from the appellant the second instalment. The appellant refused to pay the respondent on the ground that the vendor had withdrawn the instruction to pay the respondent.
The respondent then sued for the sum of N1,575,000.00 with 13% interest per annum from 1st November, 1986 until the date of judgment and thereafter 60% per annum until date of final payment.
The trial court granted judgment to the plaintiff/respondent in the sum claimed but refused to award interest on the sum on the ground that interest was not shown to be in contemplation of the parties.
The appellant felt dissatisfied and appealed against the judgment. The respondent also cross-appealed on the issue of interest on the judgment sum.
MAIN JUDGEMENT
HELD: (unanimously dismissing the Appeal and allowing the cross Appeal in part)
- The question of countermanding payment and the duty of a banker in relation thereto do not arise unless it involves the use of a cheque.
- By virtue of s. 75 of the Bills of Exchange Act Cap. 35, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 1990, the duty and authority of a banker to pay a cheque drawn on him by his customer are determined by:
(a) countermand of payment;
(b) notice of customer’s death.
- When a cheque is issued, the drawer is entitled to stop payment on it by instructing his banker and when the instruction duly gets to the banker he must comply with it irrespective of any other prevailing circumstances known to the banker.
In this case, the letter written to the appellant by the vendor instructing payment to the plaintiff upon delivering the stockfish is not a cheque which could be countermanded as a cheque could. If the instruction in question is withdrawn and the appellant decided to comply, their liability or otherwise for compliance will depend on any existing collateral matters relating to the instruction.
