This will be Maybe not this new legal standing

This will be Maybe not this new legal standing

:: In Akanle V Reginam, the court noted that “banker” refers to the company licenced to carry on banking business.

:: Point dos Expense off Exchange Act 1954 talks of a banker because a human anatomy out of individuals if provided or not who continue the firm from financial. It definition was faulty as Part 2 of one’s Finance companies and you can Most other Loan providers Work makes it an ailment precedent to possess people carrying on financial team becoming included.

:: From the Area dos of the Facts Operate, a man, union or team carrying-on the firm away from financial. Comparable meaning offered by Point 41(1) of the Banking Decree.

This new conviction of the movie director to possess granting illegal funds try quashed on the ground that the banker rather than the manager ought to possess become prosecuted because the banker consumer dating is actually you to regarding borrower-collector

:: A banking providers might have been outlined during the Section 66 BOFIA as the the company out-of acquiring monies… giving fund… welcome from credit, expenses, cheques, purchase and marketing out of ties… others since minister get designate.

For this reason, a beneficial banker identifies a friends that has been provided and you can registered to continue financial providers. Elizabeth.g. Stanbic IBTC, GTB, UBA and the like.

The new court stored your banker-customer relationships try anywhere between An effective while the bank notwithstanding your account try unwrapped from inside the B’s title since bank merely knew An effective

:: From inside the normal conditions, he could be thought to be one purchasing the items otherwise making use of their the help of other. It is not important to know the strict judge concept of a consumer so you’re able to discover which the bank lawfully owes a duty.

:: In Ladbroke and Co V Todd, the court held that to qualify as a customer, one must have an account with the bank. Same position was followed in Commissioners of Taxation V English Scottish and Australian Bank, where it was held that duration was irrelevant given there was an account to the financial. In Woods V Martins Bank, the court noted that a finalised agreement to open an account could suffice notwithstanding that no actual deposit has been made. In Robinson V Midland Bank, where A opened an account in B’s name. In Great Western Railway Company V London and County Banking Co, one Huggins had been cashing cheques over the counter at the defendant bank for almost 20 years. The court held that since Huggins had no account with the bank, he was not a customer. Similarly, in Ademiluyi and Lamuye V ACB, A and B (prominent members of a ruling party; NCNC) opened an account with ACB. ACB believed that the account was opened on behalf of NCNC whom they regarded as their customer. “A” sought to cash money from the account but NCNC countermanded the cheque. The court held that the countermand by NCNC was ineffective because the banker-customer relationship existed only between ACBank and AandB who were the account holders.

A SHIFT IN POSITION: The cases of Hedley Byrne Co V Heller and Partners and Agbonmagbe Bank V CFAO Ltd the courts drawing from the decision of Donoghue V Stevenson, have held that a bank can be liable in negligence to a person notwithstanding that he does not have an account with the bank so long as it is reasonably foreseeable that they shall be affected by the bank’s negligence.

To close out, every instance have to be computed by itself deserves. The latest courts will get impose an obligation off care for the an effective banker depending on the characteristics of your own deal and need out of fairness and security notwithstanding that a person does not have an account into the financial.

Post a comment