.
hbriefs heading animation Search for cases summary on Hbriefs like hbriefs on facebook follow hbriefs on twitter

BOOK: First 2-Years as a Law Student: Experiences and Lessons - visit website

JUMP TO CONTENT

MainStreet Bank Ltd. v. Mrs. Lilian Halim Abi Chahine (2014) - SC


place advert here


icon CASE SUMMARY OF:

MainStreet Bank Ltd. v. Mrs. Lilian Halim Abi Chahine (2014) - SC

by PaulPipAr
icon PARTIES

MainStreet Bank Ltd.

v.

Mrs. Lilian Halim Abi Chahine (2014) - SC
icon CITATION
icon COURT

Court of Appeal
icon LEAD JUDGEMENT DELIVERED BY:

Ibrahim Mohammed Musa Saulawa;
icon LAWYERS WHO ADVOCATED

FOR THE APPELLANT

FOR THE RESPONDENT
The member(s) and administrator(s) of HCB put in energy in order to provide the cases summary they do on this online platform. We desist from charging you a fee, and we have decided to keep this online platform free and accessible for as long as we deem fit. However, in order to keep alive the impetus that makes us provide these free services, kindly make a donation, if you can.
Bank: Zenith Bank.
Name: Branham Paul Chima.
Account No.: 2178756839.


icon FACT

The original plaintiff died, and was substituted by his wife.
The appellant who was the defendant at the high court got judgement given against it because of a negligent act it committed against the respondent (Plaintiff at the the High Court).
The fact of the cases is such that, the respondent took a loan from the appellant, and on the request of the Appellant for a guarantee, the respondent used his foreign bank (BIAO) at oversea as a guarantee. However, before the expiry of the guarantee the respondent paid the loan back and hence told the appellant to tell the oversea bank to cancel the guarantee since it has been settled. However, the appellant fail to do so, and the respondent account reserved for the guarantee remained been blocked. When a customer of the respondent attempted to cash a cheque, the cheque was bounced. And so the respondent instituted this action at the lower court demanding for damages.

icon ISSUE

1. Whether there was a privity of contract between the parties, if yes, whether the cases falls within the scope of exceptions to the privity of contract?

2. Was Late F.H Khoury a party to the contract of guarantee in this cases, and was he and the role allegedly played by him within the contemplation of the contract document exhibit "A" which showed the clear intention of the parties to the contract of guarantee?

3. Was F.H Khoury both General Manager and Manager Director of Warratem Engineering Company Ltd., and also the man behind the veil of incorporation of the company?

4. Did the learned trial judge fail in his judicial duty when he omitted to make a finding as to whether the purported account of late F.H El-Khoury with BIAO London was a deposit or a current account?

5. Was the learned trial judge right in holding that an action of this nature claiming damages to late F.H El-Khoury reputation can survive the deceased F.H El-Khoury?

6. Was the entire role played by Late F.H Khoury as alleged by him not in violation of the provisions of Exchange Control Act 1962, Cap 113 LFN 1990 both of which were in force at the time material to this cases?

7. Was it right for the learned trial judge to hold that BIAO London acted as agent to the defendants/appellant in this cases to make the defedant/appellant liable for the act of the said BIAO London?

8. Did the Learned Trial Judge apply the correct principles of law relating to award of damages, and were the damages awarded to the plaintiff/respondent in this cases not clearly excessive and unreasonable?


icon HOLDING & RATIO DECIDENDI

1. The Court of Appeal held that there was privity of contract between the appellant and the respondent. The reason being that the deceased plaintiff used his personal account to secure the loan for and on behalf of Waratem Eng. Co. Ltd. Further, his account was used as security for the loan with BIAO.
icon REFERENCED
icon SOME PROVISIONS
Get that your business, idea, or work available to the public. HCB gets sufficient amount of visits daily. Utilise this golden opportunity to make your product(s) available to the public domain by advertising on this website. If you are interested in advertising on this platform, click "place my advert".

place my advert

place advert here
Go to Crowdfire


icon NOTABLE DICTA

The word "Privity" means the relationship or connection between two or more parties, each having a legally recognised interest in the same subject matter, such as in a transaction, proceeding, or piece of property. Also termed mutuality of interest.
The end of this brief.


If this brief was aidful to you, LIKE Hbriefs on Facebook and FOLLOW Hbriefs on Twitter to get frequent Legal updates from Hbriefs.
kind_emoji


place advert here




USE THE SEARCH BOX BELOW
If the search box is not available below, it is due to network issues; in that case, reload page or check back again.
The search feature works perfect! Although the search feature might not capture very recent uploaded cases; If you did not get a particular case, we recommend entering the Case Summary categories and use your browser search/find feature, or use the request feature below.


JUMP TO TOP


REQUEST A CASE SUMMARY





ABOUT



TERMS AND CONDITONS



ADVERTISE ON HBRIEFS



FOUNDER




Humongouz Empire
© 2018 - 2021

website developed by hzztudio