Court of Appeal has set aside the N20 million general damages awarded in favour of Biatemp Ventures Limited against FirstBank of Nigeria.
The judgment was delivered on February 4, by a three-member panel led by A.A. Banjoko.
The case started at the Federal High Court, where Biatemp filed a N20 billion suit against FirstBank and the Federal Inland Revenue Service over claims linked to its domiciliary account and tax matters.
The trial court held that Biatemp did not prove that its account was manipulated but awarded N20 million against the bank and FIRS for claims of embarrassment and reputational damage.
In the appeal, Justice Banjoko said the trial court did not identify any wrongful act by FirstBank.
He said the delay in issuing a tax clearance certificate was linked to an investigation by FIRS and not to any action by the bank.
He added that without proof of breach of duty or negligence, the award of general damages could not stand.
“The award of general damages becomes legally unsustainable,” he said.
The court also held that discretion to award damages must be based on legal principles and facts.
Justice Banjoko said an appellate court can intervene where such discretion is applied on wrong grounds.
“In the instant case, the trial court exercised its discretion to award general damages after exonerating the appellant. This warrants interference,” he said.
The court ruled that the award of N20 million was inconsistent with the findings of the trial court and set it aside.
Counsel to FirstBank Michael Numa argued that the claims required proof beyond reasonable doubt and that the company failed to meet that standard.
Counsel to Biatemp Olajide Olaleye-Kumuyi maintained that the trial court was right to award damages based on the evidence presented.
The appeal court allowed the appeal and set aside the damages award.
In a related case, the Federal High Court in Abuja discharged FirstBank from an $8.48 million garnishee proceeding involving NIMEX Petrochemicals Ltd and Conoil Plc.
The ruling, delivered by M. Umar on March 31, held that an overdraft does not amount to funds available to a judgment debtor.
