Justice Nwaka delivered the judgment in a suit marked LD/ADR/800/17 between Adetokunbo as sole claimant and Diamond Bank as the sole defendant. The suit originally involved three banks as defendants, but the first and third defendants settled with the lawyer out of court, leaving Diamond as the remaining defendant.
In his statement of claim, Adetokunbo, who represented himself, sought N25m against the bank as both special and general damages he incurred due to the bank’s “negligence and breach of duty of care.”
The lawyer further stated that during the blockage, he was “engaged in a brief which would have earned him N10million,” but which he lost. But Diamond Bank, through its counsel, Olatunji Muritala, countered that the cheque was dishonoured on November 29, 2016 when it got a letter from the EFCC asking it to place a lien on the customer’s account. It also challenged the claim for N25m on the ground that Odutola “failed to prove any economic loss suffered when his account was placed on Post No Debit (PND)”.
The defendant urged the court to dismiss the suit in its entirety and refuse all reliefs sought, with substantial cost against the claimant. In her judgment of December 16, 2019, the judge upheld the lawyer’s claims.
Justice Nwaka held: “The bank went ahead to place PND on the account of the claimant on the instruction of the EFCC. The bank ought to have demanded from the EFCC an order of court to that effect.
“It is not in the power of the EFCC to authorise a PND on any customer’s account. The EFCC must not usurp the powers of a court of law. The duty of care owed the claimant by the second defendant (Diamond Bank) is nothing but breached.”
The judge said the bank’s inaction of not demanding an order of court or an official letter authorising it to place PND on the claimant’s account,” amounts to negligence. And this negligence is traced to the embarrassment and loss suffered by the claimant….
“This is a society whose affairs are supposed to be governed and conducted in accordance with the law. The EFCC and the bank taking law into their hands is nothing but shameful. “I am satisfied that the claimant has proved his case on the preponderance of evidence and I so hold. “Judgment is hereby entered for the claimant against the second defendant as per his claims.”