CASE DIGEST - TORT: DEFAMATION; BANKER–CUSTOMER; INTERBANK COMMUNICATION ABOUT A CUSTOMER'S ACCOUNT IS PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION, AND NOT DEFAMATORY TO THE CUSTOMER

KUNGO ROCK INVESTMENT LTD v. UNION BANK OF NIGERIA PLC.

COURT OF APPEAL (NIGERIA) (LAGOS DIVISION)

(OGBUINYA; BAYERO; SIRAJO, JJ.CA)

Kungo Rock Investment Ltd. (Appellant) a current account customer of Union Bank of Nigeria Plc. (Respondent) at its branch in Ikeja, Lagos drew a cheque for the sum of N500,000.00 on the 10th of January 2002, in the name of Mr Kunle Adenipekun, its managing director, on its account with the Respondent, which was to be paid to Gateway Bank Plc. Gateway Bank Plc then sent the cheque for clearing but the Respondent refused to pay it for the reason that it was a forged instrument. On enquiry, the Appellant was informed by the Respondent that a similar cheque for the sum of N500,000.00 was earlier presented and the sum paid to the holder. The Respondent further wrote a letter to the Gateway Bank Plc wherein it informed it that the Appellant's cheque of 10th January 2002 was forged, and it should not be paid, and that the payee should be arrested, and his account blocked. The Appellant alleged that it was the Respondent who negligently paid the said sum to the presenter of that cheque as it breached normal banking rules and regulations. It further viewed the content of the letter written to Gateway Bank Plc as defamatory of it, causing it damage not only to its credits but also to its reputation. The Respondent joined issues with the Appellant, and upon the conclusion of the trial, the Lagos State High Court (trial Court) dismissed the Appellant’s suit.

Aggrieved by the decision of the trial Court, the Appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal. One of the issues for determination is: Whether or not the words contained in Exhibit C3 amount to defamation of the Appellant.

The Counsel for the Appellant enumerated the features of libel and submitted that it is the duty of the plaintiff to plead and prove libel. He asserted that the appellant pleaded' and proved libel based on exhibits C1 - C4, and also noted that a corporate entity is capable of being defamed. Further to this, he narrated the circumstances when qualified privilege is not applicable and insisted that exhibits C1 - C4 were libelous of the Appellant.