From INIOBONG SUNDAY, Uyo
Court of Appeal sitting in Lagos has upheld the judgment of the Lagos State High Court, which ordered Union Homes Savings and Loans Plc, a subsidiary of Union Bank Plc to refund N75.5 million to a private company in Lagos, Abimbola Foods Limited, being excess charges and levies with interest until the final liquidation of the said excesses.
The Appellate Court’s affirmation was contained in its judgment of appeal brought by the appellant, Union Homes Savings and Loans Plc against the respondent, Abimbola Foods Limited, which was made available to journalists in Uyo, the Akwa Ibom State capital, yesterday.
In the lead judgment read by Justice Ntong Ntong, the Court of Appeal held that the Appellant was in breach of offer and acceptance letter for the loan account by calling up the loan of N18 million before its expiration and continued debiting the respondent’s current account to the tune of N16 million while the transaction was terminated by the appellant.
The Appellate Court also affirmed the order of the trial court directing the appellant to release to the respondent, all her title documents of real properties surrendered as security and awarded the cost of N200,000 against Union Homes Savings and Loans Plc.
It described the appellant’s action of excessive charges as opprobrious, damning and cruel, and warned other banks to desist from excessive and inordinate charges of their customers.
The Lagos State High Court presided over by Justice S. I. Sonaike in suit number: LD/1392/2012 had delivered the judgement on September 22, 2017 against Union Homes Savings and Loans Plc.
Dissatisfied with the judgment, Union Homes filed an appeal and nominated issues for determination on whether the amended statement of claim dated April 30, 2015 but admittedly filed out of time on May 5, 2015 became a nullity when the trial judge jettisoned the order made on October 8, 2017 to regularise the same and purported to raise and determine the issue of regularity of the filing on May 5, 2015 of the said amended statement of claim without calling on the parties to address the court on it.
The court resolved the issues in favor of the respondent and held that the amended statement of claim was properly regularised and valid and that the trial court rightly admitted and relied on the forensic reports and testimony of the respondent’s witness.
Justice Ntong also held that the respondent proved its case of breach of contract and excess charges against the appellant and that the appellant failed to establish its counterclaim with credible evidence.
In dismissing the appeal for lacking in merit, the Appellate Court also affirmed the judgment of the trial court with no order as to cost.
