Let me say this for the umpteenth time. If you are capable of making a business decision, I strongly advise you to have a lawyer as a friend or get a lawyer on a payroll if you can afford it.

Why do I care? Wo! It’s not like people will listen self, so what is my own?

Most Nigerians believe they only need the services of a lawyer when they are in serious trouble. How about avoiding trouble in the first place?

Is prevention not better than cure?

That was how this bank customer chopulated igbese with an extra 6million naira debt. Imagine how he almost got away with a 6million naira shortfall that was lying carelessly on the table, only for him to undo himself with his own hands.

Just negudu!

Last week, I decided I will dedicate time to read at least one case every day from the law report. And that was how I stumbled on this interesting case of how a bank customer almost got away with a 6m debt waiver.

His only undoing was that he decided not to seek good and prompt legal advice when he needed it the most.

The lawyers were required to recover the sum of N16 million the customer owed the bank. But for some reasons I can't comprehend, the bank decided to claim 10million only, leaving a shortfall of 6million naira on the table.

The customer didn’t show up during court proceedings. So judgment in default of appearance was delivered in favour of the bank. The customer eventually reached out to the lawyers in the course of enforcing the court judgment requesting to meet with them.

His payment of the judgment debt was supposed to put an end to the case. However, the customer orally agreed to pay the shortfall of 6m during one of such meeting due to reasons best known to him.

Maybe the customer was ignorant of the implication of such oral agreement and whether or not his statement amounts to what is known in law as 'novation of contract'.

The customer subsequently got a debt demand notice, demanding payment of the shortfall, two months after he made the oral agreement to pay the debt.

What shocked me most, like Bubu, was the fact that the customer didn't deny making the oral agreement to pay the shortfall. He simply contended that since he has paid the judgement debt, the bank was barred from making any demand regarding the debt.

The bank subsequently sued for the shortfall, but what was the decision of the court?

Did the customer unknowingly and unintentionally buy igbese?

If you were in his shoes, will you pay?

The position of the law is clear that;

"Where a party makes an irrevocable representation to another party which that other party relies on to its detriment, the party who made the representation is in law, estopped from denying liability for the loss suffered by the party that relied on the representation. Where a party admits a fact which is conclusive, he is not permitted to contradict his admission to the prejudice of the party who has acted to his detriment on the admission."

The question for determination by the court was whether or not the bank was legally allowed to claim the shortfall of N6m haven claimed N10m?

But in determining this, the court had to consider whether or not the customer's oral agreement to pay the shortfall constituted a fresh agreement. In other words, if the previous contractual relationship between the bank and the customer was novated by the customer's agreement to pay the shortfall?

The court believed that the customer's oral agreement to pay the shortfall, which he also impliedly admitted in his response to the bank's demand notice, constituted a fresh contract that was actionable in law.

The court jettisoned the customer's defence that the bank was precluded from making further claims or litigating on the shortfall by the provision of Section 139 of the Evidence ACT 2011.

The court also relied upon the judgment of the supreme court, wherein the learned justices of the apex court in the case of EGBE VS. ADEFARASIN (1987) 1 NWLR (PT. 42) 1* held thus;

"It is well settled that where one party has by his words or conduct made to the other a promise or assurance which was intended to affect legal relations between them and to be acted upon accordingly, then once the other party has taken him on his word and acted on it, the one who gave the promise or assurance cannot afterword be allowed to revert to the previous legal relations as if no promise or assurance had been made by him. He must accept their legal relations as modified by himself, even though it is not
supported in point of law by any consideration, but only by his word".

Do you think it was unfair that the customer had to pay the shortfall?

Could this have been avoided altogether, if the customer engaged a lawyer at the earliest possible time?

Well! Let's hear your opinion.

I am following...

Following with rapt attention please

Am waiting

This is the reason why those who can afford it seek for medical attention or other sensitive professional service abroad.

There is something called Confidentiality that prevent people like you from making this kind of post. But here you're parroting about your client and their customer.

I wish you all the best oh, hope you don't talk yourself out of practice.

ATTAHDYE:
This they reason why those who can afford it seek for medical attention or other sensitive professional service abroad.

There is something called Confidentiality that prevent people like you from making this kind of post. But hear you're parroting about your client and their customer.

I wish you all the best oh, hope you don't talk yourself out of practice.

I sincerely appreciate your concerns. But you will agree with me that for every rule, there are exceptions. And I will be grateful if you can also point out that this does not fall within those exceptions.

See Rules 39(4) (f) of the Rules of Professional Conduct for Legal Practitioners 2007.

The position of the law is clear that;

"Where a party makes an irrevocable representation to another party which that other party relies on to its detriment, the party who made the representation is in law, estopped from denying liability for the loss suffered by the party that relied on the representation. Where a party admits a fact which is conclusive, he is not permitted to contradict his admission to the prejudice of the party who has acted to his detriment on the admission."

The question for determination by the court was whether or not the bank was legally allowed to claim the shortfall of N6m haven claimed N10m?

But in determining this, the court had to consider whether or not the customer's oral agreement to pay the shortfall constituted a fresh agreement. In other words, if the previous contractual relationship between the bank and the customer was novated by the customer's agreement to pay the shortfall?

The court believed that the customer's oral agreement to pay the shortfall, which he also impliedly admitted in his response to the bank's demand notice, constituted a fresh contract that was actionable in law.

The court jettisoned the customer's defence that the bank was precluded from making further claims or litigating on the shortfall by the provision of Section 139 of the Evidence ACT 2011.

The court also relied upon the judgment of the supreme court, wherein the learned justices of the apex court in the case of EGBE VS. ADEFARASIN (1987) 1 NWLR (PT. 42) 1* held thus;

"It is well settled that where one party has by his words or conduct made to the other a promise or assurance which was intended to affect legal relations between them and to be acted upon accordingly, then once the other party has taken him on his word and acted on it, the one who gave the promise or assurance cannot afterword be allowed to revert to the previous legal relations as if no promise or assurance had been made by him. He must accept their legal relations as modified by himself, even though it is not
supported in point of law by any consideration, but only by his word".

Do you think it was unfair that the customer had to pay the shortfall?

Could this have been avoided altogether, if the customer engaged a lawyer at the earliest possible time?

Well! Let's hear your opinion.

litigator:
Let me say this for the umpteenth time. If you are capable of making a business decision, I strongly advise you to have a lawyer as a friend or get a lawyer on a payroll if you can afford it.

Why do I care? Wo! It’s not like people will listen self, so what is my own?

Most Nigerians believe they only need the services of a lawyer when they are in serious trouble. How about avoiding trouble in the first place?

Is prevention not better than cure?

That was how this bank customer chopulated igbese with an extra 6million naira debt. Imagine how he almost got away with a 6million naira shortfall that was lying carelessly on the table, only for him to undo himself with his own hands.

Just negudu!

Last week, I decided I will dedicate time to read at least one case every day from the law report. And that was how I stumbled on this interesting case of how a bank customer almost got away with a 6m debt waiver.

His only undoing was that he decided not to seek good and prompt legal advice when he needed it the most.

The lawyers were required to recover the sum of N16 million the customer owed the bank. But for some reasons I can't comprehend, the bank decided to claim 10million only, leaving a shortfall of 6million naira on the table.

The customer didn’t show up during court proceedings. So judgment in default of appearance was delivered in favour of the bank. The customer eventually reached out to the lawyers in the course of enforcing the court judgment requesting to meet with them.

His payment of the judgment debt was supposed to put an end to the case. However, the customer orally agreed to pay the shortfall of 6m during one of such meeting due to reasons best known to him.

Maybe the customer was ignorant of the implication of such oral agreement and whether or not his statement amounts to what is known in law as 'novation of contract'.

The customer subsequently got a debt demand notice, demanding payment of the shortfall, two months after he made the oral agreement to pay the debt.

What shocked me most, like Bubu, was the fact that the customer didn't deny making the oral agreement to pay the shortfall. He simply contended that since he has paid the judgement debt, the bank was barred from making any demand regarding the debt.

The bank subsequently sued for the shortfall, but what was the decision of the court?

Did the customer unknowingly and unintentionally buy igbese?

If you were in his shoes, will you pay?

I'm still not sure what message you're trying to pass across

ATTAHDYE:
This is the reason why those who can afford it seek for medical attention or other sensitive professional service abroad.

There is something called Confidentiality that prevent people like you from making this kind of post. But here you're parroting about your client and their customer.

I wish you all the best oh, hope you don't talk yourself out of practice.

Litigator is still maintaining the confidentiality policy as he has not mentioned the names of his clients or the other party involved.

He has done no wrong but to continually provide enlightenment on our rights and how to pursue it.

Stay outta this thread if you are not cool with it.

SavageResponse:


I'm still not sure what message you're trying to pass across

Read the concluding part.

You're just one individual, the bank worth billions and loads of customers can break you. They can writeoff 6m because they are working with averages. The only winner is the lawyers with many clever ways of cheating the law.

BelloP:
You're just one individual, the bank worth billions and loads of customers can break you. They can writeoff 6m because they are working with averages. The only winner is the lawyers with many clever ways of cheating the law.

How do you mean?

Kindly explain, please.