A Federal High Court in Lagos will today (Monday) take evidence from a customer with Fidelity bank, Mr. Laitan Adesanya on how the sum of $1.8m deposited in his domiciliary account number 5090619186 allegedly disappeared from his account.
Mr. Adesanya had approached the court for an order declaring that the Fidelity bank is liable to him for the sum of $1,850,000.00 allegedly withdrawn from his account with the bank.
The plaintiff will be led in evidence by his lead counsel, Chief Bolaji Ayorinde SAN.
Besides, the plaintiff sought the court for an order directing Fidelity bank PLC to pay him the sum of $1,850,000.00 being the sum standing to his credit in his account with the bank.
Specifically, he asked the court for an order declaring that he was not in Nigeria between February 27, 2015 and March 5, 2015 which is the period when the sum of $1,850,000.00 was allegedly withdrawn in cash from his account.
The plaintiff asked the court for an order declaring that he was not at the bank’s Utako, Abuja branch on March 3, 2015 when the sum of $1,850,000.00 was allegedly withdrawn from his account with the bank.
He prayed the court for an order that the bank should pay interest to him on the aforesaid sum of $1,850,000.00 at the rate of 12 percent per annum from March 3, 2015 till the date the judgment in this suit is fully satisfied by the bank.
The court had on October 9, 2018 subpoenaed an official of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), Mr. Bawa Abdulrasheed, asking him to come and give evidence that the plaintiff, Laitan Adesanya, and officials of the defendant, Fidelity bank PLC were invited by the EFCC operatives sometime in 2016.
The bank’s had informed EFCC that the plaintiff donated the sum of $1.85million as campaign funds to Diezeani Allison Madueke and that the bank also informed EFCC operatives that they had the instruction of the Executive Director of the bank to debit the plaintiff’s account and credit the campaign account of Diezeani Allison Madueke.
But, the plaintiff denied such contributions and documents including certified true copies of statements made to the EFCC by the plaintiff and the bank during the course of interview and interrogations are before the court admitted as marked exhibits.
Notwithstanding the anti-graft agency’s evidence before the court, the bank, in its second consequential amended statement of defence urged the court to dismiss the suit with substantial cost as it is frivolous, vexatious, irritating, unmeritorious and constitutes an abuse of judicial process.
The bank claimed that on March 3, 2015 the plaintiff filled and signed the domiciliary withdrawal form requesting for the said sum of $1,850,000.00 and upon being satisfied that the plaintiff’s details as contained on his mandate card correspond with that on the domiciliary withdrawal form he submitted; the bank approved the withdrawal request.
The defendant further claimed that after the plaintiff collected the cash, he endorsed the reverse page of the withdrawal form by writing “cash collected by me” appended his signature on the said page and dated same.