An FCT High Court presided over by Justice Christopher Oba has ordered Globus Bank to pay a total sum of N256 million to Abuja-based Haril Global Solutions Ltd for breach of contractual agreement and wrongful deductions.
The judgment was delivered in suit number FCT/HC/CV/1456/2026 filed by Haril Global Solutions Ltd against the bank.
Also listed as defendants in the counterclaim filed by the bank were Chinedu Mba, Idris Olayiwola, and the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission.
Haril Global Solutions Ltd had approached the court through a Writ of Summons, alleging breach of contract and wrongful deductions amounting to millions of naira from its accounts by the bank.
In his judgment, Justice Oba held that there was a valid and subsisting contractual agreement between the claimant and the defendant based on the Letter of Offer of Facility dated July 4, 2023, and the Overdraft Facility Agreement executed by both parties on the same date.
You May Like:Customers Panic As Another N900 Million Fraud Hit Globus Bank
The court consequently declared that the claimant was entitled to the refund of the Debt Service Reserve Fee of N109 million, which the bank allegedly withdrew wrongfully from the claimant’s Debt Service Reserve Account and transferred into its overdraft account on December 29, 2023, contrary to the terms of the agreement between both parties.
The court also ordered Globus Bank to refund the sum of N26,076,388.32, which was allegedly deducted on January 31, 2024, as interest from the claimant’s account despite a Post-No-Debit restriction already placed on the account, a situation the claimant argued prevented it from carrying out its business operations.
Justice Oba further directed the bank to return another N15 million allegedly deducted from the claimant’s account on February 6, 2024, also as interest despite the existing Post-No-Debit restriction.
In addition to the refunds, the court awarded N5 million as general damages against the bank for breach of contract and ordered it to pay N1 million as the cost of the suit.
According to the court, Globus Bank breached the accepted Letter of Offer of Facility dated July 4, 2023, as well as the overdraft facility agreement executed between both parties.
“A declaration of this honourable court is hereby made that the contract between the Claimant and the Defendant pursuant to the Letter of offer of facility dated the 4th July, 2023, and the Overdraft Facility Agreement executed between the Claimant and the Defendant dated 4th day of July 2023, is discharged by the breach occasioned by the Defendant,” the court held.
“A declaration of this Honourable Court is hereby made that the defendant is liable to the Claimant for breach of contract, thus liable to pay the Claimant general damages for breach of contract.”
The court, however, dismissed the counterclaim filed by Globus Bank, ruling that the bank failed to provide credible evidence to establish allegations of fraud and unlawful interference against Haril Global Solutions Ltd.
The bank had alleged that the claimant manipulated the system by debiting other merchants in order to credit its own account.
Justice Oba, however, held that no evidence was presented identifying the specific merchants allegedly debited, nor was testimony provided from any affected third parties.
The court also examined the Police Investigation Report marked Exhibit Q1-2 and held that the document did not indict the claimant for fraud.
According to the judge, the report referenced an alleged N900 million transaction, which differed significantly from the N2.5 billion claim sought by the bank in its counterclaim.
The judge ruled that the police report was merely investigative in nature and could not serve as judicial proof of fraud.
“Consequently, the Counter-Claimant has failed to provide cogent, credible, and compelling evidence to establish its claims for fraud or unlawful interference with trade,” Justice Oba stated.
“The reliefs sought in the Counter-Claim are declaratory and monetary in nature, and such reliefs cannot be granted on the basis of unsupported allegations or documents that have been expunged by the Court.
“In the circumstances, I find that the Counter-Claimant has failed to discharge both the legal and evidential burden of proof required by law.
