I WANT EVERYONE TO NOTE THIS BANKING RULE: ACCORDING TO MY BANKING & FINANCE LECTURER AND HOD, MR ABIOLA LAWAL. HE SAID THE BANKING RULE CONCERNING BANK ROBBERY IN BANKING HOUR SAYS, WHEN YOU ARE IN A BANKING HALL AND ROBBERS COME IN AND YOU HAVE JUST GIVEN YOUR FUND TO THE CASHIER FOR DEPOSIT, THE BANK WILL NEVER PAY YOU, DON'T SAY YOU HAVE GIVEN IT TO THE BANK(CASHIER), BECAUSE THE BANK HASN'T CHECK/CONFIRM IF YOUR NAIRAS ARE ORIGINAL AND IF THE AMOUNT YOU WROTE IN THE TELLER IS TRULLY THE AMOUNT OF CASH YOU ARE DEPOSITING

LOOK AT ALL BANKS' TELLER'S, THEY ALL HAVE WHERE TO FILL IN ALL DENOMINATIONS. EVEN IF YOU HAVE JUST GIVEN THE CASHIER N1BILLION.
THE BANK WILL AND ONLY LIABLE TO PAY DENOMINATIONS IN WHICH THE CASHIER HAS TICKED OR MARKED IN YOUR TELLER CARRYING YOUR ACCOUNT DETAILS(SOUND VERY RIDICULOUS? LOL)

SO WHENEVER YOU ARE IN THE BANKING HALL TO MAKE DEPOSIT, WHILE THE CASHIER IS CONFIRMING YOUR FUND, THOUGH SOME OF THEM(CASHIERS) BUT TELL HIM/HER TO TICK THE DENOMINATION(S) HE/SHE HAS COUNTED

o boy. see arguments. see lawyers. am enjoying all these. Learning deeply.

Wow, I can't believe it , my thread made fp...Ordinarily, I won't be bothered about my thread making front page but I am elated because of two reasons:
1. Today is the beginning of a new year (01-01-2014) so making front page is symbolic and this is the beginning of many more to come.
2. This is the first time my thread will make front page.
#quickly wears cloth and runs to church to give testimony #
I give honour and glory to God for making me see this day. Many thought that my thread wouldn't make fp but God disappointed them...
Haters, go and ...[/quote]

I need educated on this. how does one, in the process of typing a thread or report, say it made front page? !!!!
on the argument, it's bullshit, dead on arrival. to sue and win a case, you need hard evidence. How can you prove you had any money in the first place? My advice would be that of care and applied wisdom cos the sued could turn around & counter sue for being a possible suspect in the committed crime. This instance forms no basis for argument.

Adinije: if u haven't deposited ur money and it got stloen, it's ur loss but if u have just deposited and the bank got robbed immediately then it's the bank's loss.

Well thank God for technology. In the daays of yore, when your teller was very important, if you do not have the teller. am sure u would not get any money.

Ofcos U can claim,But,if the bank puts up notices saying u n ur property are at ur own risk at them hall,however Im yet to see any Bank in 9ja put up such notices,there are strict guidelines n rules regarding what n what is required to run a banking hall one of them is dedicated cctv systems,under the H &S law,the Bank has a coprate duty n its liable for any loss of life or property within its premises,the limitations would be what U need to check and also what sort of evidence is required,least we forget.the Banks are all insured against all sort,its nt as if the are paying,its the insurance peopl who will foot tge bil.

kpez:


Wow, I can't believe it , my thread made fp...Ordinarily, I won't be bothered about my thread making front page but I am elated because of two reasons:
1. Today is the beginning of a new year (01-01-2014) so making front page is symbolic and this is the beginning of many more to come.
2. This is the first time my thread will make front page.
#quickly wears cloth and runs to church to give testimony #
I give honour and glory to God for making me see this day. Many thought that my thread wouldn't make fp but God disappointed them...
Haters, go and ...

I need educated on this. how does one, in the process of typing a thread or report, say it made front page? !!!!
on the argument, it's bullshit, dead on arrival. to sue and win a case, you need hard evidence. How can you prove you had any money in the first place? My advice would be that of care and applied wisdom cos the sued could turn around & counter sue for being a possible suspect in the committed crime. This instance forms no basis for argument.

Brov in the court of law U can win,U mite av footage of them taking the money,u mite av proof of source of mney.If u gt shot in the bank.wont U claim?

kpez:


Wow, I can't believe it , my thread made fp...Ordinarily, I won't be bothered about my thread making front page but I am elated because of two reasons:
1. Today is the beginning of a new year (01-01-2014) so making front page is symbolic and this is the beginning of many more to come.
2. This is the first time my thread will make front page.
#quickly wears cloth and runs to church to give testimony #
I give honour and glory to God for making me see this day. Many thought that my thread wouldn't make fp but God disappointed them...
Haters, go and ...

I need educated on this. how does one, in the process of typing a thread or report, say it made front page? !!!!
on the argument, it's bullshit, dead on arrival. to sue and win a case, you need hard evidence. How can you prove you had any money in the first place? My advice would be that of care and applied wisdom cos the sued could turn around & counter sue for being a possible suspect in the committed crime. This instance forms no basis for argument.

Let me cure your ignorance... I modified and added it after my thread made front page...

Back to your opinion to the question... I can't say much because I am not a lawyer and that was why i opened this thread... I am still learning from the diverse opinion given by enlightened nairalanders (lawyers) on this thread... So

nupera: The bank can not be held liable for what they have not taken procession of. The twist is that there is what is called occupiers liability. If i fell and broke my arm within the bank premises due to a wet floor i can sue and get compensated if the bank did not make diligent effort to inform me of the possible hazard....just like they warned that my vehicle is parked at my risk within their compound.
I'm not a lawyer any learned fellow can help us further.

The bank cannot be held liable for the robbery of a money or any chattel not yet in its possession (not even in Nigeria where we have jobless youths doing nothing but having a feel of bank's ac, forming around with there bb phones)
so far it's not proven that it's the bank or any of its official(s) that willfully or negligently exposed the said customer or the "potential" depositor into the danger

nupera: The bank can not be held liable for what they have not taken procession of. The twist is that there is what is called occupiers liability. If i fell and broke my arm within the bank premises due to a wet floor i can sue and get compensated if the bank did not make diligent effort to inform me of the possible hazard....just like they warned that my vehicle is parked at my risk within their compound.
I'm not a lawyer any learned fellow can help us further.

I agree with your first sentence. The bank is responsible for safeguarding money you deposit into them and not money in your pocket or handbag. However, if you slip and break a wrist, the only compensation you may get is "eyaaa...sorry". One, you aren't a worker in the bank who slipped while performing his duties, hence they are not liable. You may be a customer but, there's no evidence that you didn't slip of your own error...your shoes may be the cause. Since, I don't expect the floor of a bank to be wet I don't think I'll expect a sign: Beware of wet floor.
On the other hand they may be liable as the floor of a bank should be devoid of excessive liquids and other materials that may cause harm. It depends on the circumstances. Why is there water on the floor? Is there a justifiable reason? These are questions the bank should answer.

BY Silver: Under the Banking Law the relationship between a customer and the bank is that of bailee and bailor and under the same provision not every body who does business with the bank is regarded a customer at law..for u to be properly called a customer of a bank you must have a valid account in line wit d relevant laws prescribed by the bank, by virtue of dat the relationship as regards where liability lies its stricto sensus very clear, the bank is onli liable for the lost of monies been deposited in ur account and not that which is lost within the premises if a reverse is the case it will cause untold hardship to the bank and d courts to ascertain the exact amount that was stolen as certain individuals may bring frivolous claims...so until the bank agent receives ur money the liability is on the customer if any lost should arise.ipso facto do so mean that you can't sue..talking frm the stand point of banking law and not common sense

Res ipsa loquitur.

kaka22:
Let me cure your ignorance... I modified and added it after my thread made front page...

Back to your opinion to the question... I can't say much because I am not a lawyer and that was why i opened this thread... I am still learning from the diverse opinion given by enlightened nairalanders (lawyers) on this thread... So

Oh, thanks for that education, you actually cured my ignorance, but prof, say you post, make fp, modify, repost, it doesn't now become original, meaning, there are now two posts?! Where is the original post? please further cure this ignorance of mine which is now advanced.

You can't claim such, be it money or property because you don't have proof of such money. Somethings are nt done on assumptn, its about fact and ethics. Even u gave d money to d cashier; while still counting it robbers came as long as u don't have d teller to claim it then its bygone bt only if d cashier wants to help she can write a Teller for u (which is a HELP). Although banks claim that if u collect money and left d counter u can't come back to claim dt such money is nt complete. Am very sure ds is possible in Germany as they refer to the CCTV cameras to knw hw much is the money. Will u blame banks for being robbed at d ATM Point around 5 in d morning?

kaka22:
So the customers who haven't deposited their money won't be compensated?... Since the customers were robbed inside the bank, does that not count for something? ...

The problem of written agreement in terms of stamped paying in slip will arise,like how much is the customer claiming and how much did he actually brought to the bank?The issue of establishing how much a customer was to deposit,will make the compensation of the bank to the customer robbed in the bank premises impossible.

@OP just pray that those Bois don't meet U in the bank. If not, all these ur Question will turn to stories

Adinije: if u haven't deposited ur money and it got stloen, it's ur loss but if u have just deposited and the bank got robbed immediately then it's the bank's loss.

This is the position at Law. There is nothing to add or remove.

Voice of an Ink:


I agree with your first sentence. The bank is responsible for safeguarding money you deposit into them and not money in your pocket or handbag. However, if you slip and break a wrist, the only compensation you may get is "eyaaa...sorry". One, you aren't a worker in the bank who slipped while performing his duties, hence they are not liable. You may be a customer but, there's no evidence that you didn't slip of your own error...your shoes may be the cause. Since, I don't expect the floor of a bank to be wet I don't think I'll expect a sign: Beware of wet floor.
On the other hand they may be liable as the floor of a bank should be devoid of excessive liquids and other materials that may cause harm. It depends on the circumstances. Why is there water on the floor? Is there a justifiable reason? These are questions the bank should answer.

You are gradually stepping into an unknown terrain. Your earlier postulation, though with warped grammar and boisterous use of the latin phrases, were never the less, in line with legal principles. However, on the present analogy of falling and breaking a wrist in the banking hall, please review what the law says about occupiers liability. Stop misinforming readers who are here to learn.

A bank is a public place just like any other public domains like eateries, supermarket, Airport, Cinemas etc..Though fortified with adequate security due to the sensitivity of their services..if robbery incidence happened in their premises, they aren't liable if your cash is yet to be acknowledged..Except if it was discovered that recommended security was not made available as recommended by regulatory authorities (NDIC,CBN) at the time of incidence..Hence, they could be liable for negligence on their part to ensure security cover.

My thought.

hardbody:

You are gradually stepping into an unknown terrain. Your earlier postulation, though with warped grammar and boisterous use of the latin phrases, were never the less, in line with legal principles. However, on the present analogy of falling and breaking a wrist in the banking hall, please review what the law says about occupiers liability. Stop misinforming readers who are here to learn.

Please let's not go there accusing ppl of bad grammar, this is not our language, some of us as adopted the language as god's language, use it when you've to, dish when not. The Chinese don't speak proper english, hence they rule the world. The world richest person is from Mexico, not the best english speaker, even Bill Gates, and other Billionaires are high school drop outs. I understand english is the language of business, but stop proping this language as the best since slice bread. Communication is about understanding, if you can understand me, then I have communicvate to you. Don't insult ppl bcus they didnt say your queen's language correctly, is not our first language, since if the queen can speak any Nigerian language

Chief, you just went round like another text-book lawyer in Nigeria who doesn't know what liability really means!!!

Na wa oo....dis is simple. No liability on d part of the bank for any cash dat isn't deposited before a robbery. Once d bank's stamp & a teller signs off on ur deposit, then d bank will b liable cos possession has changed hands legally. Any other thing na wash....

hardbody:

You are gradually stepping into an unknown terrain. Your earlier postulation, though with warped grammar and boisterous use of the latin phrases, were never the less, in line with legal principles. However, on the present analogy of falling and breaking a wrist in the banking hall, please review what the law says about occupiers liability. Stop misinforming readers who are here to learn.

Hmmmn.....since I've learnt a lot from you I guess I should be telling you thank you. I've read about occupiers liability. Although I have some reservations, I think it's logical to end my argument here Kindly point out my 'warped grammar' and excessive 'latin phrases'. We are all here to learn.
My apologies to all misinformed readers.

It's quite possible depending on the situation. Banks are supposed to provide adequate security for their clients who should also be careful in their dealings with people that they see around there.

I laugh in spanish at the person who has tagged Armed Robbery an Act of God...An Act of God is an unforseeable, humanly uncontrollable, unpreventable event...Pls stop confusing the non-legally inclined posters here. Thanks

]Hello guys,

Do you need a professional person to handle your ICAN lectures for all categories and levels. Have you being having difficulties on subjects like Management Accouting,Financial Accounting, IFRS Indepth,Strategic Financial Management, Advanced TAxation,Financial Reporting and Ethics etc.?

Do you need someone to solve all these with current dispensation of ways to tackles professional exams? I am glad to inform you that i am well imbibed with all these as i passed all the professional stages of ICAN in one sittings.

Lets discussed and let me show you the secret.

Reach me on,

0.8.0.7.9.2.7.6.9.0.7(08079276907[b]Hello guys,

Do you need a professional person to handle your ICAN lectures for all categories and levels. Have you being having difficulties on subjects like Management Accouting,Financial Accounting, IFRS Indepth,Strategic Financial Management, Advanced TAxation,Financial Reporting and Ethics etc.?

Do you need someone to solve all these with current dispensation of ways to tackles professional exams? I am glad to inform you that i am well imbibed with all these as i passed all the professional stages of ICAN in one sittings.

Lets discussed and let me show you the secret.

Reach me on,

0.8.0.7.9.2.7.6.9.0.7(08079276907[/b]Hello guys,

Do you need a professional person to handle your ICAN lectures for all categories and levels. Have you being having difficulties on subjects like Management Accouting,Financial Accounting, IFRS Indepth,Strategic Financial Management, Advanced TAxation,Financial Reporting and Ethics etc.?

Do you need someone to solve all these with current dispensation of ways to tackles professional exams? I am glad to inform you that i am well imbibed with all these as i passed all the professional stages of ICAN in one sittings.

Lets discussed and let me show you the secret.

Reach me on,

0.8.0.7.9.2.7.6.9.0.7(08079276907

purplish: I laugh in spanish at the person who has tagged Armed Robbery an Act of God...An Act of God is an unforseeable, humanly uncontrollable, unpreventable event...Pls stop confusing the non-legally inclined posters here. Thanks

Always read in between lines and comprehend adequetly before posting..The Act of God earlier mentioned has no affiliation with the case @hand as it was stated xplicitly dat it is a defence in the tort of Nuisance,it has no buisness wit Negligence which is not even applicable here..

That is if you were refering to my post and not someone else.tnxx

In my own opinion, there is no legal backing for money not yet logged into your account. There is no record for the said amount, and human beings can inflate the amount to favour them.

kaka22:
The money has not been deposited...

your loss bro. sorry about that.

in most cases of bank robbery the robber do not robb people in the bank but only robb the bank itself,
If you are unlucky and you were robb while your money is still with you then U can't sue d bank

lionspot: can't believe ths. Did you pass your law of tort exam? Are you reading law in ebsu or esuth ?

what kind of question is that, I have a BSc in accounitng and a PDG in banking and finance. Am Speaking from facts. The bank has a duty of care I knw but not responsible since it was not inside the banking hall.

If you want to know. In the case of WOODS V, MARTINS BANK LTD (1959) defines a banking as a coporate organisation whose duty incluDe the opening of current aCcount operable by cheques and deposit accounts as well as the collection of cheques for coustomers among its servies.


A bank becomes liable only when the money has been recorded. The relationship of the bank and coustomer comes into existance only if both parties have an intention that it be established. This can seen in STORY STATION SUPPLIES V. MIDLAND BANK.

OYO

Here is a clue of statutory standing when it comes to banker customers relationship....