Ratio DecidendiRatio DecidendiRatio DecidendiRatio DecidendiRatio DecidendiRatio DecidendiRatio Decidendi



FIRST AFRICAN TRUST BANK LTD.
V.
PARTNERSHIP INVESTMENT COMPANY LTD.

(2000) JELR 43994 (CA)    
Court of Appeal  ·  CA/L/22/99 ·  14 Nov 2000 ·  Nigeria
 · 
Other Citations
F.A.T.B. Ltd. v. Partnership Inv. Co. Ltd. (2001) 1 NWLR (Pt. 695) 517
CORAM
ATINUKE OMOBONIKE IGE JCA CHRISTOPHER MITCHELL CHUKWUMA-ENEH JCA AMIRU SANUSI JCA

Ratio Decidendi

Core Terms Beta
appellant
respondent
alhaji ladan
issues
case
foreign exchange of us
alleged fraud
statement of defence
alleged condition
bills of exchange act
high court of lagos state
alhaji tijani ladan
favour of the respondent
issue of fraud
presumption of value
third party
want of consideration
charge of fraud
grounds of appeal
laws of the federation of nigeria
leading judgment
above views
actual fact
benefit of a third party
bills of exchange act cap
circumstances of this case
cited case
contemplation of the parties
credible evidence of value
evidence of the fraud
first question
foregoing extract of the judgment of the court
furtherance of the deal alhaji ladan
great deference
instant fraud
issue no.6
learned trial judge right
principle of law
privity of contract
provisions of order
said agreement
said draft
s.f. ltd.
show evidence of its value
true position of the matter
value of a bank draft

CHUKWUMA-ENEH, J.C.A (Delivering the Leading Judgment): This appeal is against the decision of Ade-Alabi J. of the Lagos High Court delivered on 7/7/98 in suit No. LD.1375/95. The plaintiff (i.e. respondent in this court) claimed the sum of ₦7,100,000.00 being value of a bank draft issued by the defendant (i.e. appellant in this court) in favour of the plaintiff and which draft the defendant had refused to honour. The court below gave judgment for the plaintiff as claimed; in addition awarded interest at the rate of 21-1/2% per annum from 8/2/95 to judgment and 10% per annum there after until judgment debt is finally paid. In reaching its conclusion, the court below held at p.88 LL 26- 32 and p.89 LL 1-6 thus:

"The contract was for the benefit of the plaintiff in this case. There was no privity of contract between the defendant and the plaintiff. It was never in the contemplation of the parties that the plaintiff would give value to the defendant. It was contract entered into between…

There's more. Sign in to continue reading.

judy.legal is the comprehensive database of case law and legislation from Ghana, Kenya and Nigeria. Gain seamless access to over 20,000 cases, recent judgments, statutes, and rules of court.

Get started   Login