Banking Law (63)
HELD:
"I will now address the specific issue raised in issue 1, which was whether the lower Court was right in its decision that the Respondent was right in refusing to honour Exhibits C, D, E and F mainly on the premise that there is a criminal charge against the Appellant.
HELD:
"...The Respondent's reason for refusing to honour Exhibits C,D, E and F is because of the criminal matters instituted against the Appellant.
HELD:
"The reason the lower Court justified the refusal of the Respondent to honour Exhibits B, C, D, E and F was because there was a criminal charge against the Appellant.
HELD:
"I do not agree with learned counsel for the Appellant that the Appellant was being punished for the sin of EFCC and that the Act did not give the Appellant the option of disobeying EFCC.
HELD:
"Section 34 of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (Establishment) Act 2004 provides as follows:
HELD:
"Generally speaking, the relationship between a bank and its customer is contractual.