Dear Litigator,

I am a young enterprising web designer and a backend developer. I register a business name last year during the covid lockdown, and business was good until recently.

I took a loan online from one of those loan lending companies to implement a contract I got from a real estate company. The loan was for two months, and I was hoping I will be able to repay the loan at the end of the project when I get paid.

The contract was quite massive, and it gulped my finances, including the loans I took online.

I immediately notified the loan company that the contract owner was delaying payment. And this was the reason I have been unable to pay back their money.

Despite all entreaties, the company is still delaying my money. I have sent several emails, but they are asking me to exercise patience that they will soon credit my account.

Whilst I was hustling other projects to enable me to repay my loans, my new client sent me a mail he received from a loan company about me been a criminal.

The loan company asked members of the public to refrain from doing business with me because I am a fraudster and a criminal.

I ended up losing the contract. I have called the loan company to explain to them how their calling me a criminal made me lose a comfortable 6 digit project. They are adamant and have refused to apologise or rescind their stance that I am a criminal.

They insist I am a criminal because I have been unable to repay my debt.

Can a loan deal arising from a banker/customer relationship metamorphose into a criminal trial and subsequent conviction?

Do you think he has a right to sue for defamation or breach of fundamental human right?

litigator:
It has become a new norm for small scale fintech lending companies or loan sharkers to publicly shame their customers by calling them criminals due to their inability to repay the loan granted them.

Can the failure or inability to repay a loan in a banker/customer relationship metamorphose into a criminal offence?

Does the notion that a loan defaulter is a criminal and the subsequent broadcast to members of the public without due process of the law amount to the usurpation of the duties of the court?

Is this a direct breach of the fundamental right of the defaulting customer?

What do you think is the position of the law?

No but they can get a judgment taking money from your other accounts using BVN to pay back or seize your properties

Nope.
The defaulter can of course be convicted if found to have criminally misrepresent themselves to secure the loan.
As regards the public broadcast, it is a civil issue.

One asslicker spotted up there, a mere slave boy to the BBQ guy and his cohorts

Mynd44:

No but they can get a judgment taking money from your other accounts using BVN to pay back or seize your properties

You are absolutely correct. I was asked by one of my followers to post his original question that occasioned my initial post. So what do you think are his remedy?

Does he have a right to sue the company?

ivolt:
Nope.
The defaulter can of course be convicted if found to have criminally misrepresented themselves to secure the loan.
As regards the public broadcast, it is a civil issue.

The Court of Appeal posited differently in the case of MUTIAT OMOBOLA ADIO v. FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA (2021) LPELR-54517(CA)

In this case, Mutiat Omobola Adio (Appellant) who was in the employment of the Oyo State Judiciary as Deputy Chief Registrar was arraigned before the Oyo State High Court on a one count charge of stealing. ​

The Respondent as Prosecution made a case that sometimes in February, 2008, the Oyo State High Court Judiciary Co-operative Society applied for loan facilities from Guaranty Trust Bank PLC. and consequent upon which a total sum of Ninety Million Naira was granted and disbursed in two tranches of Forty Million Naira and Fifty Million Naira respectively. The loan was to be disbursed to members of the Society. It was alleged by the prosecution that the Appellant who was one of the signatories to the account of the Cooperative Society got some of the beneficiaries to transfer some of the monies paid to them into her account. A total sum of Twenty-Five Million Naira was traced to her account. She agreed to refund the money but failed to do so. The matter was reported to the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission which eventually filed the criminal charge against her at the trial Court.

The case of the Appellant was that it was agreed by the Cooperative and the bank that the Cooperative should use its internal mechanism to disburse the loan which they did. The members were divided into groups and monies meant for each group was transferred directly to the account of the group head from the Cooperative Account who in turn transferred monies meant for other beneficiaries into the Appellant’s account. Those who transferred monies into the Appellant’s account knew the excess money paid into their account was meant for other beneficiaries.

In its judgment, the trial Court found the Appellant guilty as charged and sentenced her to five years’ imprisonment and ordered the Appellant to refund the sum of N20,915,913.21k to Guaranty Bank PLC. as restitution.

Aggrieved, the Appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal.

Ordinarily, you will be tempted to support the judgement of the trial court that convicted the Appellant. But the Court of Appeal held differently, allowed the appeal.

And consequently, set aside the sentence passed on the Appellant by the trial Court and quashed the conviction.