MEAK INVESTMENT LTD & ANOR v. KEYSTONE BANK PLC (2024) LPELR-61895(CA).
“However, where the bank interest is the subject of litigation as in the instant case, it behoves on the bank to plead and lead evidence on the rate or other facts that will enable the Court to see how it arrived at the amount claimed as simple or compound interest. It cannot be sufficient for the bank to name any figure or amount of money and proclaim it as compound interest. The law is that he who asserts must prove as enshrined in Sections 131, 132 and 133 of the Evidence Act, 2011. In the case of Veepee
Industries Ltd v. Cocoa Industries Ltd (2008) LPELR-3461(SC) at page 20 paras. C-D, Muhammad, JSC held that: “Rate of interest of any bank cannot be treated with levity or uncertainty. Speculation will not help to arrive at the exact bank rate. Thus, any claim on a rate of interest, except where concrete agreement between the parties is owned up by them or where there is positive and unequivocal admission by a party,that rate of interest has to be proved by admissible evidence.” Continuing at page 21 paras. F-G, the learned Jurist stated: “I consider essential that the rate of interest charged from time to time and the type of interest, whether simple or compound, should be disclosed by admissible evidence to make it possible for the Court to ascertain and verify the correctness of the charges on account of interest and, consequently, the correctness of the total amount claimed in the writ of summons.”