DavidEsq:

Oga I don't know wat u read in that case that informed ur conclusion that the bank would be held liable o! This is wat the supreme Court said in that case:
"If the customer makes a deposit but a cheque is presented b4 the deposit is credited into the customer's account, due to the short time frame in crediting the account, the bank would not be liable if the cheque is dishonoured". As at the time the cheques were presented for clearing, the 4k which the customer had directed to be paid into his account had not been credited into his account. Hence the cheques were dishonoured. So how does this case apply to the issue afoot, especially wen the money in this case had been deposited but OP's question touches on "b4 depositing" not after depositing.

i hope say you read why i wrote i apologise for mistake that i thinks Occupiers liability may be used to make a claim in the court of law

Valro:
As far as the bank is concerned, if its not registered in their system and you have no concrete evidence (teller), your money is gone. However, if you are lucky enough to survive the incident with the cashier, you can lodge complain if she is truthful enough to admit receiving the money from you

That's true, even if he lodges complaints, it must be backed by evidence.

EmekaBlue:
u can claim it was any reasonable amount...and as long as its not registered,it will stand as ur loss but i dont think robbers robb customers when they have d safe room to go loot out stacks of cash.

Experienced bank armed robber, SPOTTED!

In whose was the money when it was stolen by the robbers? The answer to that question should help you!

wetdick:


i hope say you read why i wrote i apologise for mistake that i thinks Occupiers liability may be used to make a claim in the court of law

How I go take know na? Before u credited ur NL account with ur apology, I was already dishonouring ur opinion which which u earlier presented, just like Salami . Occupier's liability? Hm. Make I scratch somewhere for my body fes.
I don scratch finish.
It appears u suddenly lost ur confidence tho, since u failed to expound ur opinion, based on the fact that u misapplied the case u cited earlier. Na so u take pass abi? .

CCTV can also help you back up your claim.

Petersamuel8:
sharp guy

Very sharp guy but if CCTV catch u dey stamp am ehn, u are going to OYO state o

DavidEsq:

How I go take know na? Before u credited ur NL account with ur apology, I was already dishonouring ur opinion which which u earlier presented, just like Salami . Occupier's liability? Hm. Make I scratch somewhere for my body fes.
I don scratch finish.
It appears u suddenly lost ur confidence tho, since u failed to expound ur opinion, based on the fact that u misapplied the case u cited earlier. Na so u take pass abi? .

O boy, i know no tell you say i be lawyer, i read the salami vs savannah bank, na different case

but occupier liability seem to give a clue, it also reminds me of the offa robbery. when there is robbery, there will be bodily harm

The common law imposes a duty of care on occupiers towards four categories of persons, namely, those who enter the premises in pursuance of a contract with the occupier, an invitee, such as a customer who comes window shopping at the premises, a licensee who comes into the premises with the occupier’s implied or express warranty, and trespassers who come upon or remain on premises without the occupier’s
permission or authority.

In Samson Ugochukwu v. Unipetrol (Nig) Plc,

the Supreme Court held that an injured visitor must prove that he was either a licensee or invitee to the premises in order to establish liability against an occupier. In this case, the plaintiff/appellant went to buy fuel at the defendant’s Marina filling station. While waiting to buy fuel, there was an explosion which injured him on the face, neck, legs and upper limbs. He sued the defendant for damages and also relied on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur as well as section 7(3)(a) of the Lagos State Law Reform (Torts) Law of 1994 which provides:The rule so enacted in relation to an occupier of premises and his visitors shall also apply, in like manner and to the like extent as the principles applicable at common law too an occupier of premises and his invitees or licensee would apply, to regulate the obligations of a person occupying or having control over any fixed or movable structure, including any vessel, vehicle or craft.


In his evidence, the plaintiff did not specify whether he was either an invitee or licensee to defendant’s petrol station. He simply stated that he was a lawful visitor to the defendant’s premises at the material time. Dismissing the plaintiff’s claim, the court held that he was unable to prove that he was either an invitee or a licensee.

Cyoung4real:


What are you saying?

l didn't know ds question will still come. I was confused too. I read, read, and read , still no headway

thanknairaland1:
am a banker
dea is what we call bank process;
1) banker receive d cash for lodgement
2) counted d cash
3) stamp d teller slip
4) give u back d teller
now, u r not liable for any thing dat happened to d money.

r u cleared now?

so are u telling me that the bank is not bound by law whatsover to protect its customers within the premises? surely they have to be an express law that should guide the bank and customers as they definately will be a precedence of similar event, am nt a lawyer so i dont have any case to quote

Apart from bank branches in remote areas, or areas where police or military reenforcement will take longer time or has been compromised, robbers that go to banks work with time. Their focus is on the vault cash and not customers except they sighted huge sum of money in the custody of a customer.


In response to the OP's question, the bank will only take responsibility if there are documentary evidence /record of cash payment I.e

1) If the cash has been posted on the bank's computer

2) If the cash was received by the cashier and a deposit slip stamped by the bank was issued to the customer

3) If there are details of the cash deposit transaction entered on the cash deposit register by either the customer or the cashier, even if it's yet to be posted

Note that the armed robbers could have destroyed the DVR, thereby destroying the. backed up CCTV recordings except the bank has realtime/centralized archiving or CCTV recordings of all branches in head office which is costly and expensive to maintain

Even if the CCTV was not destroyed by the robbers. The bank can destroy the CCTV footage and claim that it was destroyed by the robbers

Aside numbers 1-3 above, the bank is not liable to the customer.

Valro:
As far as the bank is concerned, if its not registered in their system and you have no concrete evidence (teller), your money is gone. However, if you are lucky enough to survive the incident with the cashier, you can lodge complain if she is truthful enough to admit receiving the money from you

Only duly collected cash with a receipt given out are banks money. Before that it is customer's money and if robbed, the customer carry the loss

As long as it has not been deposited,...u are on your own.

Because there's no record of your deposit.

USE YOUR UPPER!!

wetdick:
Once you are in the premises of the bank and a robbery occur. Dem take your cash. Dem no born the bank well if dem no give you your cash whether deposite or not.

It is the duty of the bank to protect their facility from attack.

bros this is Nigeria o. O Y O is your name if it happens to you

Am a banker and this is how it works....
If the customer with the money hasn't paid in yet(ie, he or she hasn't given the cashier the money) and an inccident of a robbery occur. My brother and sister, your money is gone but if he or she has done the vise vicer then the bank will have no choice than to pay u back the money...
Note.... You can not lie that you have paid the money but teller or the cashier hasn't input the transaction because the CCTV camera will be played again and again just to make sure no one is using the robbery as a means to loot the bank. That's why all banks has at least 3+ cctv camera facing the customer and and Cashier.

justflow1:
The customer would be liable to the strenght of the cash, intriguinly insurance only covers 2million naira on each cashier in most of the tier 1 banks. Funnily enough, Insurance company's are not father Christmas, insurance company's will only restore the insured back to its normal state but not more than the state it has attained hitherto

Read your comment again is it aligning with the question asked? And what's Hitherto doing there?

wetdick:


O boy, i know no tell you say i be lawyer, i read the salami vs savannah bank, na different case

but occupier liability seem to give a clue, it also reminds me of the offa robbery. when there is robbery, there will be bodily harm

The common law imposes a duty of care on occupiers towards four categories of persons, namely, those who enter the premises in pursuance of a contract with the occupier, an invitee, such as a customer who comes window shopping at the premises, a licensee who comes into the premises with the occupier’s implied or express warranty, and trespassers who come upon or remain on premises without the occupier’s
permission or authority.

In Samson Ugochukwu v. Unipetrol (Nig) Plc,

the Supreme Court held that an injured visitor must prove that he was either a licensee or invitee to the premises in order to establish liability against an occupier. In this case, the plaintiff/appellant went to buy fuel at the defendant’s Marina filling station. While waiting to buy fuel, there was an explosion which injured him on the face, neck, legs and upper limbs. He sued the defendant for damages and also relied on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur as well as section 7(3)(a) of the Lagos State Law Reform (Torts) Law of 1994 which provides:The rule so enacted in relation to an occupier of premises and his visitors shall also apply, in like manner and to the like extent as the principles applicable at common law too an occupier of premises and his invitees or licensee would apply, to regulate the obligations of a person occupying or having control over any fixed or movable structure, including any vessel, vehicle or craft.


In his evidence, the plaintiff did not specify whether he was either an invitee or licensee to defendant’s petrol station. He simply stated that he was a lawful visitor to the defendant’s premises at the material time. Dismissing the plaintiff’s claim, the court held that he was unable to prove that he was either an invitee or a licensee.

In the case u mentioned, the explosion could be prevented if the occupier (filling station) wants to go the extra mile. Also the root of the explosion (fuel etc) is owned by the filling station, so the court could have awarded compensation if the man was able to proof his case. In the robbery case as stated by the OP, the bank cannot completely protect itself not to talk of the customers. The court knows the law is subjective depending on the scenario

samisj4real:
Read your comment again is it aligning with the question asked? And what's Hitherto doing there?

It requires minimal level of IQ to decipher/relate what is up there with the matter at hand.

Cyoung4real:

What are you saying?

You no see hin monicker ?. hin dey confused

Lacisa:


In the case u mentioned, the explosion could be prevented if the occupier (filling station) wants to go the extra mile. Also the root of the explosion (fuel etc) is owned by the filling station, so the court could have awarded compensation if the man was able to proof his case. In the robbery case as stated by the OP, the bank cannot completely protect itself not to talk of the customers. The court knows the law is subjective depending on the scenario

i think it is almost similar, also a case of armed robbery can be prevented if proper security measures are meet by the bank.

occupier liability imposes a duty of care on occupiers to those who enter the premises in pursuance of a contract with the occupier. as a person who owns a bank account with a bank, i think, it also means i have a contract with the bank and must obey their rules and regulation or my contract with them will be terminated and my account closed.

Elder0001:


I guess all the cashiers in your bank are shes

ChelseaDotCom:
Hello guys, just thinking while I was in a bank standing on the queue to deposit; assuming I'm about to hand the money over to the cashier or cashier has collected the money but yet to register it on the computer...and a group of robbers just come in, shoot sporadically and rob people of their monies. Am I going to be paid back or am I part covered by the insurance?
Bankers and Lawyers in the house, I need you here.

/
You eat the loss. There is no record to prove any deposit from you. Banks' operations are based on numbers: recorded credits and debits.

If you pursue it vigorously, be ready to exonerate yourself from the robbery. The Nigerian Police may like to find ways to rope you in as a suspect.
/

wetdick:


i think it is almost similar, also a case of armed robbery can be prevented if proper security measures are meet by the bank.

occupier liability imposes a duty of care on occupiers to those who enter the premises in pursuance of a contract with the occupier. as a person who owns a bank account with a bank, i think, it also means i have a contract with the bank and must obey their rules and regulation or my contract with them will be terminated and my account closed.

They are completely different.

Duty of care issues I have seen are mainly health hazards and not robbery.

Armed robbery cannot be completely prevented by any institution, including police stations and even army barracks as seen in Borno state where Boko haram invaded.

Besides, CBN stated that the customer is responsible for the protection of his or her assets in the banking premises. See the link below

https://www.cbn.gov.ng/Supervision/cpdconedu.asp

ChelseaDotCom:
Hello guys, just thinking while I was in a bank standing on the queue to deposit; assuming I'm about to hand the money over to the cashier or cashier has collected the money but yet to register it on the computer...and a group of robbers just come in, shoot sporadically and rob people of their monies. Am I going to be paid back or am I part covered by the insurance?
Bankers and Lawyers in the house, I need you here.

They will look their video... But it is 50/50..

EmekaBlue:
u can claim it was any reasonable amount...and as long as its not registered,it will stand as ur loss but i dont think robbers robb customers when they have d safe room to go loot out stacks of cash.

...hmm, Ogbologbo. I see you there

Lacisa:


They are completely different.

Duty of care issues I have seen are mainly health hazards and not robbery.

Armed robbery cannot be completely prevented by any institution, including police stations and even army barracks as seen in Borno state where Boko haram invaded.

Besides, CBN stated that the customer is responsible for the protection of his or her assets in the banking premises. See the link below

https://www.cbn.gov.ng/Supervision/cpdconedu.asp

i hope you read the right to safety.

Lol imagination what if the robbers shoot you and take your money (lol)

Kalashnikov102:
Your money don va va voom!!

lol what is Va Va voom? Bro

Valro:
As far as the bank is concerned, if its not registered in their system and you have no concrete evidence (teller), your money is gone. However, if you are lucky enough to survive the incident with the cashier, you can lodge complain if she is truthful enough to admit receiving the money from you.



BTW op why u go de think that kind thought inside bank, thank God say thoughts are not visible o, people for de disappear from the bank

why did you use she referring to the cashier?

ChelseaDotCom:
Hello guys, just thinking while I was in a bank standing on the queue to deposit; assuming I'm about to hand the money over to the cashier or cashier has collected the money but yet to register it on the computer...and a group of robbers just come in, shoot sporadically and rob people of their monies. Am I going to be paid back or am I part covered by the insurance?
Bankers and Lawyers in the house, I need you here.

. It becomes the banks responsibility to pay you back that money. They ought to have secured you and your money once you are inside the banking hall. Check ethics and principles of banking.

Once witnessed a robbery in Ijebu Ode in 2007. A disabled was in the banking hall to deposit some money and one of the robbers got a cashier to enter is transaction and credit his account then proceeded to collect the money.

Satioshi:
Once witnessed a robbery in Ijebu Ode in 2007. A disabled was in the banking hall to deposit some money and one of the robbers got a cashier to enter is transaction and credit his account then proceeded to collect the money.

Very funny