It is also trite in law that when in a business transaction like the one under discourse a party is found to have withheld money due to the other party for sometime after being due, it is a natural consequence that flows from the default that interest be paid for the period of default until liquidation. I rely on ACME Builders Ltd v Kaduna State Water Board (1999} 2 SC 1 at 9.
— M. Peter-Odili, JSC. Cappa v NDIC (2021) – SC.147/2006
SHARE ON
In TATE and LYLE FOOD AND DISTRIBUTION LTD. V. GREATER LONDON CONOI AND ANOTHER. 1981 3 All E.R. 716 Forbes J on how to arrive at the rate of interest in Commercial cases held that one must not look at the profit which the Defendant wrongfully made out of the money he withheld but at the cost to the plaintiff of being deprived of the money which he should have had. In my view interest in commercial cases of this nature is not awarded against the Defendant as a punitive measure for having kept the plaintiff out of his money but as an attempt to achieve restitution in intergrum.
In Himma Merchants Ltd. V. Alhaji Inuwa Aliyu, (1994) 6 SCNJ (Pt.1) 87 (1994) 5 NWLR (Pt. 347) 657, this court in a similar situation held as follows per Onu, JSC: “…..Where therefore there is no evidence whatsoever, as in the instant case, that the claim of interest is founded upon any rationale e.g. mercantile custom or trade usage known to the parties the claim of interest for 20% per month from July, 1988, which anti-dates the judgment passed on 27th October, 1989 by the trial court is without foundation and ought to have been disallowed by the court below.” See also; Union Bank of Nigeria Ltd. Vs Prof. A. O. Ozigi (1994) 3 NWLR (Pt.333) 385 (1994) 3 SCNJ 42 at 56.
An admission against interest, in order to be valid in favour of the adverse party, must not only vindicate or reflect the material evidence before the court; it must also vindicate and reflect the legal position. Where an admission against interest does not vindicate or reflect the legal position, it will be regarded for all intents and purposes as superfluous. And a court of law is entitled not to assign any probative value to it.
– Tobi JSC. Odutola v. Papersack (2007)
Any change in the rate of interest should be brought to the attention of the customer by the banker as a condition for the banker to change the agreed rate of interest. [Okolo v. U.B.N.Ltd (1998) 2 NWLR (Pt. 539) 618 referred to]
– L.A. Ayanlere v. Federal Mortgage Bank of Nig. Ltd. (1998) – CA/K/186/96
Ordinarily, interest is not payable on ordinary debt in purely commercial transaction, in the absence of a term to that effect expressly or impliedly in the contract or mercantile usage or custom of the parties or as may be contained in a statute. It may also be in place through fiduciary relationship between the parties. See; RNA Ekwunife V. Wayne (West Africa) Ltd. (1989) 5 NWLR (Pt.122) 422 at 455.
— O. Ariwoola, JSC. African Intl. Bank Ltd. v Integrated Dimensional System (2012) – SC.278/2002
In fact, where interest is not even claimed on the Writ, but the facts are pleaded as did the Appellant in its amended Statement of Claim and evidence was given which showed entitlement thereto, the Court may award interest as a general rule. See EKWUNIFE V. WAYNE (W/A) LTD (1989) 5 NWLR (PT.122) 428.
— U.M. Abba Aji, JSC. Cappa v NDIC (2021) – SC.147/2006
Click the icons to like, follow, and join JPoetry