A Lagos High
Court has dismissed, for lack of admissible evidence, a preliminary application
by Skye Bank for an order pronouncing that Centrespread Advertising had agreed
to pay the sum of N525million as outstanding indebtedness to the bank and
compelling the latter to pay same.
In a motion for interlocutory
injunction in suit No: LD/2362GCMW/16 in which Centrespread is challenging Skye
Bank’s claim of its continued indebtedness, the Skye Bank counsel, Solomon
Mbadiwe, had prayed the Court to rule that Centrespread had, in a letter dated
June 16, 2015 and Claimant of Affidavit of June 22, 2016, admitted and proposed
the payment of the sum of N525million to Skye Bank as final settlement of the
loan agreement between the two parties.
He therefore asked the court to compel
Centrespread to make full payment of the stated sum to Skye Bank while hearing
continues in the original suit.
Delivering his ruling on the
application at the resumed sitting of the court in May, the trial judge, Hon.
Justice A. M. Lawal of the Lagos High Court, threw out the Skye Bank
application on the ground that it was based on inadmissible evidence.
“The letter dated June 16, 2015, from
the caption and the contents of the letter, it is written towards settlement of
the dispute existing between the parties. Letters written towards settlement
are classified as ‘without prejudice’ and the privilege that attends ‘without
prejudice’ communication will not be denied to a document simply because it is
not captioned without prejudice. As the letter of June 16, 2015 was written
with proposals for the settlement of the loan dispute, such is not admissible
and cannot be the foundation of an application for Judgment upon admission”,
Justice Lawal ruled.
The trial judge noted that the court
was not unmindful that the figure of N525m said to have been admitted by
Centrespread are found at paragraphs 5, 6 and 16 of the Claimant’s pleadings
and paragraphs 9, 11 and 13 of the Claimant Affidavit of June 22, 2016 filed in
support of the motion of June 22, 2016 for Interlocutory Injunction. He,
however, added that ‘a readings of these traced the source of the said admitted
figure of N525m to no other source other than the letter of June 15, 2016”,
adding that “since the letter is not admissible being covered by the ‘without
prejudice’ privilege, the said paragraphs of the pleadings and Affidavit are
also not admissible for the purpose of an application for judgment based on
admission”.
In the Statement of Claim filed by Centrespread in the originating
suit, the frontline advertising agency averred that while it is true that a
transaction was carried out between it and Skye Bank Plc in 2007, it had made
good on the terms of the agreement to pay back the principal borrowed loan
which, according to the terms of agreement, would expire in the year 2020.
Centrespread further averred that a few years ago, when it felt
that it was being subjected to exorbitant charges by Skye Bank, it employed the
services of forensic financial analysts who confirmed its concerns as true.
Centrespread is therefore praying the Court to, among other
reliefs, declare Skye Bank’s claim that it still owes the total amount declared
in its record as null and void since, according to it, a substantial part of
the figure being touted as standing against its name has been discovered to be
illegal charges.
Alternatively, the Claimant is also praying the honourable court
to compel Skye Bank to release the claimant’s loan account statement and for
the loan account statement to be analyzed by a forensic analyst to be appointed
jointly by both parties for the determination of the Claimant’s actual
indebtedness to the defendant.
Further hearing in the matter was adjourned till August 12th
of this year.
Comments
Post a Comment