Facts:

The respondent as plaintiff at the trial court claimed against the defendants jointly and severally the sum of N14,795,399.71k being the balance outstanding on the overdraft facilities granted to the 1st defendant, interest, and other bank charges due from the 1st defendant to the Commercial Trust Bank Limited at closure on 16th January 1998 and interest at the rate of 21% per annum from 17th January 1998 till judgment and final liquidation of the debt.

The action was commenced at the Federal High Court, Lagos but subsequently transferred to the Federal High Court, Kaduna for determination. It was the respondent’s grouse that in the exercise of its statutory duties as the liquidator of the defunct Commercial Trust Bank Limited (“the bank” or “the failed bank”), it discovered the indebtedness of Credit and Finance Limited (“the Company”) to the bank to the tune of N14,795,399.71k (Fourteen Million, Seven Hundred And Ninety-Five Thousand, Three Hundred And Ninety-Nine Naira And Seventy-One Kobo).

According to the respondent, a credit facility had been granted by the failed bank to the Company and same had remained unpaid. The respondent alleged that the credit facility granted to the Company was approved by the bank due to the involvement of Alhaji Muktar Ahmed Muhammed (“Appellant’s husband or Chairman of the failed Bank”) in his capacity as the Chairman of the Bank. The respondent thereafter wrote a series of letters to the appellant’s husband for the settlement of the indebtedness to no avail.

Consequent upon the foregoing, the respondent took out a writ of summons seeking jointly and severally against Credit and Finance Limited and appellant’s husband – the payment of the outstanding sum on the overdraft facilities granted to the Company.

The trial court in its judgment found in favour of the respondent and granted all the reliefs sought by the respondent. Dissatisfied, the appellant’s husband appealed to the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal agreed with the decision of the trial court to a substantial extent but reviewed the interest rate from 21% per annum as awarded by the trial court to 18% per annum.

Further aggrieved by the decision, the appellants appealed to the Supreme Court.