Damages for detinue cannot be rightly awarded when the claim arises from a contractual dispute.

BD LAW DIGEST WITH CLRN & ALP NG & Co.

AMINU ISHOLA INVESTMENT LIMITED v. AFRIBANK NIGERIA PLC

SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA

(CHUKWUMA-ENEH; GALADIMA; MUHAMMAD; OGUNBIYI; ALAGOA, JJ.SC)

BACKGROUND FACT

Aminu Ishola Investment Limited (The Appellant) a customer of Afribank Nigeria PLC. (the Respondent) had lodged a cheque in the sum of N 467,000.00 to open a fixed deposit account at the Respondent’s Ilorin branch. The Respondent opened the said account for the Appellant, and it was agreed that the deposit would attract an annual interest rate of 12.25% which could be reviewed upwards from time to time at a rate agreed by the parties after negotiation. Subsequently, the Appellant informed the Respondent of its intention to withdraw the funds in the fixed deposit account. The Respondent, however refused to accede to the Appellants request on the ground that they had received a directive from their head office to stop payment from the account due to the fact that the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) had frozen the account.

The Appellant then requested that the interest rate on the account be increased to 25% which the Respondent did not agree to. The Appellant alleging that the Respondent wrongfully detained its money, instituted an action at the Illorin Division of Kwara State High Court (trial court). By his reliefs, the Appellant sought the release of the sum deposited in the fixed deposit account plus the agreed 12.5% interest per annum. The Appellant also claimed special damages of an additional 25% interest per annum and general damages of N20, 000,000.

Upon conclusion of trial, the trial Court, held that the Respondent had wrongfully detained the Appellant’s money, and ordered the refund of the sum deposit as well as interest at the rate of N25% per annum. The Court also awarded damages in the sum of N2,000,000.00 in favour of the Appellant.
Dissatisfied by the decision of the trial Court, the Respondent appealed to the Court of Appeal (lower court). The appeal was allowed, and the decision of the lower court set aside.

Further aggrieved by the decision of the Court of Appeal, the Applicant appealed to the Supreme Court to set aside the judgment of the lower court. One of the issues for determination was: Whether the court below was right in holding that the relationship between the appellant and respondent was based only on contract and not in the tort of detinue.

ARGUMENTS

In arguing this issue, the Appellant’s Counsel submitted that its case is based on two causes of action namely breach of contract and the tort of detinue. The Appellant argued that a Plaintiff can ground his claim on more than one cause of action and where he is able to prove his claim and his cause of action succeeds, he will be entitled to all the reliefs he has established. Counsel maintained that it is not the law that a Plaintiff who claims in contract cannot rely on other causes of action like detinue or conversion. The learned counsel further submitted that the Respondent had manifested an intention to permanently deny the Appellant of the money deposited and in so doing, the tortious claim of detinue was clearly made out.

In response to the argument canvased by the learned Counsel for the Appellant, the Respondent’s Counsel argued that the basis of the relationship between the parties is agreement and therefore contractual in nature involving obligations on both sides, breach of which is a breach of contract. Counsel submitted that since the relationship is contractual in nature, the subject matter of detinue could not have arisen since detinue is a tortious claim that involves goods or chattels and not money unless it was specifically identified for example “money in the bag” as against money in a fixed deposit account which is not a chattel, and to succeed in a claim for detinue, the Appellant is required by law to establish the wrongful detention of his chattel; or goods by the Respondent.

The Counsel for the Respondent in submission stated that apart from the fact that the award of general damages to the Appellant by the trial court was based on a wrong premise, the court below was right to have interfered with the award which to be proper, must not be manifestly too high or manifestly too low and in the present circumstances, it was too high.

DECISION OF THE COURT

In resolving the issue, the Supreme Court held that:

The words “chattel” or “goods” cannot by any stretch of imagination be extended to mean or include money in an abstract form such as a bank draft used in the transaction. The statement of claim refers to “terms of agreement” details of which are no doubt contractual between the parties, imposing obligations on both sides. An award of N2,000,000 damages based on the tort of detinue cannot therefore be right. Thus, it is clear that the trial court was not only operating under the wrong premise that the relationship between the appellant and the respondent was one under the tort of detinue instead of contract, the damages were also excessive and liable to be detinue on appeal by the lower court which did so.

Issue resolved in favour of the Respondent.

M.I Hanafi, Esq. with D.T Nwachukwu; SS. Umoru and S.O.Q. Giwa for the Appellant.
Sheni Ibiwoye, Esq. with Theophilus Okwute and Jessikan Nanle (Miss) for the Respondent.

This summary is fully reported at (2013) 7 CLRN in association with ALP NG & Co.
See www.clrndirect.com ; www.alp.company