:: In Akanle V Reginam, the court noted that “banker” refers to the company licenced to carry on banking business.
:: Area 2 Bills out-of Change Act 1954 defines an effective banker as the a body from individuals whether incorporated or not whom go on the organization away from financial. Which definition was incorrect since Area 2 of Banks and you will Other Financial institutions Operate will make it a condition precedent to have persons carrying on financial company becoming provided.
:: Because of the Point 2 of Facts Operate, men, partnership or company carrying-on the company from financial. Equivalent definition supplied by Part 41(1) of your own Banking Decree.
:: A financial team could have been outlined inside Part 66 BOFIA since the the business regarding searching funds… giving fund… desired from credit, costs, cheques, buy and you can product sales of securities… anyone else since minister may designate.
For this reason, a beneficial banker makes reference to a buddies which had been incorporated and licensed to keep financial company. Age.grams. Stanbic IBTC, GTB, UBA and stuff like that.
:: For the average conditions, they are considered one buying the goods otherwise using their the expertise of various other. It’s although not crucial that you understand the rigid legal concept of a customer to help you understand whom the financial institution legitimately owes a duty.
:: In Ladbroke and Co V Todd, the court held that to qualify as a customer, one must have an account with the bank. Same position was followed in Commissioners of Taxation V English Scottish and Australian Bank, where it was held that duration was irrelevant considering there is an account toward financial. In Woods V Martins Bank, the court noted that a finalised agreement to open an account could suffice notwithstanding that no actual deposit has been made. In Robinson V Midland Bank, where A opened an account in B’s name. In Great Western Railway Company V London and County Banking Co, one Huggins had been cashing cheques over the counter at the defendant bank for almost 20 years. The court held that since Huggins had no account with the bank, he was not a customer. Similarly, in Ademiluyi and Lamuye V ACB, A and B (prominent members of a ruling party; NCNC) opened an account with ACB. ACB believed that the account was opened on behalf of NCNC whom they regarded as their customer. “A” sought to cash money from the account but NCNC countermanded the cheque. The court held that the countermand by NCNC was ineffective because the banker-customer relationship existed only between ACBank and AandB who were the account holders.
A SHIFT IN POSITION: The cases of Hedley Byrne Co V Heller and Partners and Agbonmagbe Bank V CFAO Ltd the courts drawing from the decision of Donoghue V Stevenson, have held that a bank can be liable in negligence to a person notwithstanding that he does not have an account with the bank so long as it is reasonably foreseeable that they shall be affected by the bank’s negligence.
In conclusion, all of the circumstances should be calculated on its own deserves. The new courts can get impose an obligation away from worry to the good banker according to the character of purchase plus the requires out-of fairness and you can guarantee in spite of that any particular one does not have a keen membership for the financial.