Customer drags Access Bank to court over loss of C of O used for loan processing

A customer of the Access Bank Plc, Isaac Dare, has accused the
bank of breach of the duty of care to him by losing the Certificate
of Occupancy for his property located in Oshodi/Isolo, Lagos
State.

In his suit filed against the bank at the High Court of the
Federal Capital Territory, Abuja, Dare described the loss of the
document by the bank as “reprehensible” and “unpardonable”.

He claimed a total of N112m against the bank.

He said in his suit that he deposited the original copy of the
Certificate of Occupancy with the bank on October 24, 2013,
preparatory to using the property, which he said was valued at
about N123.758m as of October 2009, as collateral for a loan he
sought to obtain from the bank.

He claimed that the bank was to conduct legal search on the
property at the Lands Registry of Lagos State and return it to him
after the exercise.

He, however, alleged that the bank had been evasive on the
status of the title document since the time it was deposited with
the bank.

His statement of claim filed on behalf of his lawyer, Mr E. A.
Adedeji, read in part, “The claimant avers that the defendant was
to discuss the terms and condition of the loan with him after
conducting the legal search.

“The claimant avers that the defendant became evasive on the
status of his Certificate of Occupancy over No. 7A&B, Oronna
Street, off Owoseni Street, Oshodi/Isolo, Local Government Area,
Lagos State, since he deposited it with the defendant.”

He said he orally demanded his document from the bank all to no
avail.

He added that he wrote a letter dated July 12, 2017, to the bank
requesting his Certificate of Return but that the bank did not
respond “until he engaged the service of his lawyer who wrote the
defendant (the bank) on his behalf.”

He said the bank, upon receipt of his lawyer’s letter, dated
September 4, 2018, responded through a letter dated December 14,
2018.

He added, “The claimant avers that the evasiveness and refusal
to return his certificate of Occupancy …frustrated every prospect
of getting loan for his business proposal.

“The claimant avers that he lost business opportunities due to
unavailability of fund and every effort to get fund was frustrated
by his inability to get collateral.”

He stated that he could no longer obtain another original
Certificate of Occupancy “which implied that he could no longer use
the property as collateral for loan as banks only accept
Certificate of Occupancy as collateral for loan.”

“The claimant avers that the conduct is reprehensible,
indefensible and unpardonable,” he added.

He prayed for N100m as “general damages” against the bank for
“breach of duty of care” to him and “the irreparable loss” he
suffered as a result of the alleged breach.

He also asked for N10m as “exemplary damages” for “its
reprehensible conduct,” and N2m as the cost of prosecuting the
suit.

He also urged the court to order the bank “to make publication
in two reputable national dailies” stating that the Certificate of
Occupancy” numbered, 11/11/2013, was lost in its custody.

In its statement of defence, the bank, through its lawyer, Mr
Onwuchekwa Onwuchekwa, admitted that the document got lost in its
custody “due to remodeling works” that affected its “filing
system.”

Describing the suit as frivolous and gold digging, however, the
bank stated that it had offered him the Certified True Copy of the
document which it claimed “is as good as” the original copy, but
the claimant rejected it.

The bank’s statement of defence read in part, “The defendant in
further answer to paragraphs 1 to 22 of the statement of claim
avers that if the claimant had accepted the offer of Certified True
Copy of the said Certificate of Return, the defendant would have
been prepared to give a bond or a guarantee should that have been
requested by the claimant.

“The defendant in further answer to paragraphs 1 to 22 of the
statement of claim avers that Certified True Copy of the said
Certificate of Return is as good as the original of the Certificate
of Occupancy.”

It added that contrary to the plaintiff’s claim “banks accept
the offer of Certified True Copy of the said Certificate of
Occupancy, share certificate” and other collaterals as security for
loan.

“The defendant in further answer to paragraphs 1 to 22 of the
statement of claim avers that the claims of the claimant are
frivolous and amount to gold digging,” the bank stated.

Subscribe ToNairalaw News!