IYANAM v. UBA PLC & ANOR (2024) LPELR-61550(CA)
Principle
โThe appellantโs counsel has argued that the 1st respondentโs case depended absolutely on the statement of account which was rightly rejected by the trial Court but in a volte face the Court held that the appellant is indebted to the 1st respondent. With respect, I do not agree with this contention of the appellant. The principle of law that it is mandatory to tender a statement of account coupled with credible oral evidence linking the statement with the actual payments made, showing what was owed, what was paid, what is outstanding and how the outstanding sum was arrived at is correct when the party, in this instance the 1st respondent is relying on the statement of account to support his claim for unpaid debt or loan. See Bilante International Ltd v. NDIC (2011) 6 SCNJ 481 and Ifemesia v. ECOBANK (2018) LPELR-46589(CA). Per PETER CHUDI OBIORA, JCA (Pp 27 โ 28 Paras E โ C)
