:: In Akanle V Reginam, the court noted that “banker” refers to the company licenced to carry on banking business.
:: Section 2 Expense out-of Change Work 1954 represent a great banker because the a body away from people whether or not provided or otherwise not which go on the company away from banking. That it meaning try awry just like the Area dos of one’s Financial institutions and you can Almost every other Creditors Act helps it be a condition precedent to own people carrying-on banking company getting incorporated.
:: By Point dos of Proof Act, a person, partnership otherwise business carrying on the business of banking. Similar meaning provided by Part 41(1) of your Banking Decree.
This new belief of the movie director to possess giving unlawful finance is quashed on to the floor that banker instead of the director need for started charged as the banker buyers dating was you to away from borrower-creditor
:: A financial company has been outlined inside Area 66 BOFIA due to the fact the firm out-of receiving funds… granting financing… greeting regarding credit, costs, cheques, purchase and you can income out of bonds… someone else just like the minister get employ.
Hence, good banker makes reference to a pals that has been provided and authorized to carry on banking team. Age.grams. Stanbic IBTC, GTB, UBA and the like.
The brand new courtroom kept that the banker-customer dating is between A good therefore the lender regardless of that the account is launched for the B’s title because financial merely know A good
:: During the average words, he’s thought to be men buying the services and products otherwise and their the help of other. It is but not vital that you be aware of the rigid judge meaning of a customers to decipher who the financial institution legally owes an obligation.
:: 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 a free account towards bank. 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, all of the instance have to be calculated on its own merits. The new process of law get demand a duty regarding worry towards an excellent banker with regards to the nature of the exchange and the requires away from fairness and you will equity in spite of that a person doesn’t always have an account for the bank.