In the suit delineated I/619/15, he is also asking Justice M Olusegun of Court 8, to give an order compelling First Bank to refund the sum of twenty one million, eight hundred and three thousand, three hundred and twenty seven naira (N21, 803, 327) being money he paid to the bank as interest and charges on loan for failure of consideration. And the sum of one million, six hundred and ninety three thousand (N1, 693,000.00) as money paid to perfect the mortgage in respect of loan, which is the subject matter of the suit and an additional N600,000 as cost of the legal action. The proprietor in his statement of claim had averred that he was sometimes offered a landed property at the sum of N75milliom out of which he paid N20m and then approached First Bank for mortgage finance, adding that the land vendor however upgraded the fee to N120million and refused to collect N55million as balance. According to him, though the vendor had already put him in possession of the property, he opted to leave the money in the same account to which it was disbursed as fixed deposit to enable him pay to the vendor when the price issue is resolved. He averred further that he filed a suit against the vendor and was updating the bank about every development, adding that on the bank was routinely collecting interest on the loan to the tune of N21, 803, 327. Further, he stated that in order for the loan to serve the interest for which it is granted, he paid interest and charges on it without touching the money. He alleged that the bank however cancelled the loan facility on the ground that he did not furnish it with the title deeds to the landed property when it already knew that the matter was still at litigation as the bank was given status reports regularly. He also asked for a court declaration that the bank granted the loan of N70million and collected interest and charges on it and that the purported termination of his loan already paid into his account is illegal and a breach of contract among other declarations. The bank in its defence admitted that the proprietor is their customer and they knew he couldn’t get deeds to the landed property due to the recalcitrant nature of the vendor. It also agreed that it cancelled the loan and refused to reinstate it. The bank however denied every other averment made by the proprietor against it, adding that the failure of the claimant to duly produce the documents of title on the property he proposed to use as a collateral security for the banking facility. The bank further argued that the interest computation being alleged by the proprietor were only computed against his account in line with the agreement between the parties as clearly highlighted in the stipulated terms and conditions of the bank. The case has been adjourned till June 27, 2016 for pre trial conference.]]>