Facts:

The cross-appellant, a dealer in petroleum products especially in the downstream sector of oil and gas industry, was a high-profile customer of Intercontinental Bank Plc which metamorphosed into fourth cross-respondent. In 2007, the fourth cross-respondent granted an initial facility of ₦40M, which it later increased to ₦80M, ₦250M and ₦350M, to the cross-appellant on certain securities. In 2006, at the behest of the second cross-respondent, the cross-appellant made her a commission agent on the sale of its petroleum products. In 2008, the cross-appellant entered into a contract of the supply of petroleum products to the first cross-respondent through the persuasion of the second and third cross-respondents who were the managing director and chairman/major promoter of the first cross-respondent respectively. The proceeds of the sales were to be remitted to the cross-appellant via its account with the fourth cross-respondent wherein the third cross-respondent doubled as a staff thereof. The cross-appellant alleged that between May and July, 2008, it supplied the first cross-respondent with petroleum products to the tune of ₦198M which the first – third cross-respondents, in collaboration with the officials of the fourth cross-respondent, converted to their own use. The cross-appellant further alleged that the fourth cross-respondent negligently allowed the first – third cross-respondents to make massive unauthorised withdrawals from its account with it. It further alleged that the fourth cross-respondent was careless, reckless and observed unprofessional conduct in dealing with its account. In reaction, the first – third cross-respondents and the fourth cross-respondent, upon serve of the processes on them, joined issue with the cross-appellant and denied liability by filing their statements of defence. In their defences, they described the action as a gold-digging, vexatious and frivolous matter. Upon conclusion of trial at the lower court, and in a considered judgment, the lower court granted some of the prayers in the cross-appellant’s suit.

Dissatisfied with certain parts of the judgment of the lower court, the cross-appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal.