The Court of Appeal has voided the N20 million general damages awarded in favor of Biatemp Ventures Limited by a Federal High Court against First Bank of Nigeria.
This is according to a certified true copy of the judgment, exclusively obtained by Nairametrics, which was delivered by a three-man panel of the Appeal Court led by Justice A.A. Banjoko on February 4, 2026.
At the trial court, the bank and the Federal Inland Revenue Service (FIRS) were embroiled in a N20 billion special damages litigation commenced by Biatemp Ventures, bordering on the alleged manipulation of its domiciliary account and tax obligations.
In the trial court’s judgment, it held that Biatemp did not prove that its account was manipulated but awarded N20 million against the bank and FIRS for alleged “embarrassment and reputational damage.”
What the Appeal Court said
Delivering the lead judgment, Justice Banjoko, having reviewed the case, held that the trial court did not identify any independent wrongful act attributable to the bank.
He said that the delay in the issuance of the Tax Clearance Certificate was traced to an investigation by the FIRS and not to any proven misconduct by the bank.
He stressed that in the absence of a proven breach of duty, negligence, or other actionable wrong against the bank, “the award of general damages becomes legally unsustainable.”
The judge explained that while Biatemp Ventures had contended that the lower court had the discretion to still award general damages, it must be noted that discretion to award damages is not at large but must be exercised judicially and judiciously, based on sound legal principles and established facts.
Justice Banjoko said the Supreme Court had reaffirmed that an appellate court will interfere where discretion is exercised on wrong principles or without regard to relevant considerations.
- “In the instant case, the trial court exercised its discretion to award general damages after expressly exonerating the appellant of the alleged wrongdoing.
- “This constitutes a clear instance of discretion exercised on a wrong principle, thereby warranting interference by this Court,” he said.
In the final analysis, the Appeal Court held that the learned trial judge was wrong to award general damages in the absence of a proven wrongful act against the bank.
- “The award of N20,000,000 as general damages is inconsistent with the court’s own findings and cannot be allowed to stand,” he said.
The judge concluded that the judgment of the lower court with regard to the award of damages is accordingly set aside.
Backstory
First Bank’s lawyer, Michael Jonathan Numa, SAN, had argued that an allegation which was clearly criminal in nature required the stringent standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt from the company.
- The appellant also submitted that the trial judge rightly appreciated this legal position and correctly held that the company failed to discharge the burden placed on it by law.
- He maintained that the award be quashed because the trial court categorically found that the allegation of manipulation remained unproven throughout the entire trial.
- Biatemp’s lawyer, Olajide Olaleye-Kumuyi, Esq., had contended that the trial judge was perfectly justified in awarding the sum of N20,000,000 as general damages, having regard to the totality of the evidence before the court.
For the lawyer, the bank was under a clear duty, as banker to his client, to render accurate and timely statements of account, especially when such information was required by a statutory authority for tax assessment purposes.
Both parties had urged the Appeal Court to uphold their respective lines of submission.
What you should know
The development adds to the list of favorable verdicts obtained by the bank in monetary matters.
- Nairametrics previously reported that the Federal High Court, Abuja, had, in March this year, discharged First Bank of Nigeria Limited from an $8,488,752.88 garnishee proceedings dispute between NIMEX Petrochemicals Ltd and another party against Conoil Plc.
- The enrolled copy of the ruling, delivered by Justice M. Umar on March 31, 2026, was obtained by Nairametrics.
According to M.J. Numa & Partners LLP, the court upheld the submissions of the bank, holding that an overdraft facility constitutes a debit position and does not amount to funds standing to the credit of a judgment debtor.
