site logo

STERLING BANK PLC V. FALOLA (2015)

case summary

COURT OF APPEAL (LAGOS DIVISION)

Before Their Lordships:

  • Amina Adamu Augie JCA
  • Samuel Chukwudumebi Oseji JCA
  • Tijjani Abubakar JCA

Parties:

Appellant:

  • Sterling Bank Plc

Respondent:

  • Sola Falola
Suit number: CA./L/616/05

Background

This case concerns a dispute between Sterling Bank Plc and Sola Falola, a former employee of the bank, regarding unpaid entitlements and benefits after Falola's resignation. Initially employed in July 1996, Falola was elevated to General Manager in April 1999, with an agreement to receive 2% of the bank's net profits. After resigning in April 2000, he demanded his benefits but the bank failed to pay, prompting him to file a suit in the Lagos State High Court to recover N8,685,979.10, inclusive of interest. The trial court ruled in Falola's favor, awarding him the claimed amount as well as 21% pre-judgment interest, leading Sterling Bank to appeal.

Issues

The appeal raised several critical issues:

  1. Whether the trial court was correct in admitting exhibits P4A and P9.
  2. Whether the evidence presented by CW2 was pertinent to the case.
  3. Whether a claim for N7,901,902.00 existed before the trial court.
  4. Whether the trial court was justified in awarding the sum of N7,901,902.00.
  5. Whether the interest rate of 21% per annum was appropriate.

Ratio Decidendi

The court's judgment noted several judicial principles, which helped in determining the case:

  1. Documents must be relevant to the case but do not necessarily need pleading; it's sufficient that related facts are pleaded.
  2. The entirety of pleadings must be read holistically to understand the substantive issues.
  3. The burden of proof shifts in civil cases; initially, it lies with the plaintiff but may change as evidence is presented.
  4. A claim for interest must be adequately substantiated by evidence to justify the rate sought.

Court Findings

The court found that:

  1. Exhibits P4A (the promotion letter) and P9 (financial statements) were admissible as they supported the facts presented in the pleadings and were not strictly required to be pleaded themselves.
  2. CW2’s testimony about the net profit of the bank was valid and relevant to establishing Falola's claim for the 2% profit share.
  3. There was indeed a claim for N7,901,902.00 in the statement of claim, which was distinct from the total entitlement claimed.
  4. The trial judge rightly awarded the N7,901,902.00 amount as it was evidence-based and supported by the financial statements provided.
  5. However, the judge's award of 21% interest was found to be unsupported by sufficient evidence.

Conclusion

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part. The award of N7,901,902.00 was affirmed, recognizing the validity of Falola’s claim based on both his employment agreement and the bank's financial reports. However, the 21% pre-judgment interest was set aside due to lack of supporting evidence, while a post-judgment interest of 10% remained in effect.

Significance

This case emphasizes the importance of both tangible evidence and legal principles regarding burden of proof and admissibility of documents in civil litigation. It reinforces that interest on claims must be substantiated, particularly in employment disputes. The ruling also illustrates judicial strictness in ensuring that awards for interest are rooted in credible evidence, not mere claims.