Facts:

The Respondents, as Claimants at the trial court, commenced the action against the Appellant, as Defendant, by a Writ of Summons and Statement of Claim dated 17th May 2016. The Respondents averred that they were clients of the Appellant and had been utilizing its logistics and marine transportation services for the movement of refined petroleum products and the chartering of oil tankers. In October 2013, the Claimants approached the Defendant to charter one of its oil tankers for the transportation of refined petroleum products. The Defendant requested a deposit of ₦12,000,000.00 to bunker one of its vessels, M.T. Sea Tiger, for the intended operation. It was agreed that the said sum would be refunded to the Claimants within 30 days of release, failing which the Defendant would pay interest at the rate of 7.5% per month until liquidation. The agreement was evidenced by email correspondence and a letter from the Defendant dated 11th October 2013.

Similarly, sometime in September 2013, the Claimants engaged the Defendant to transport 5,000 metric tonnes of Dual Purpose Kerosene (DPK) using one of the vessels under the Defendant’s management, S.P. Brussels, on a 20-day time charter at the rate of USD 10,000 per day. The Claimants paid USD 200,000 into the Defendant’s account as the freight sum to be transferred to the vessel owner. However, the Defendant allegedly diverted the funds to other ventures, prompting the Claimants to make a fresh payment of USD 200,000 directly to the vessel owners to complete the transaction. The Defendant thereafter failed or refused to refund the initial payment of USD 200,000. Furthermore, the Claimants averred that in April 2013, they utilized the Defendant’s services to transport another 5,000 metric tonnes of DPK for ₦15,000,000.00. It was later discovered that only 2,500 metric tonnes belonged to the Claimants, while the remaining 2,500 metric tonnes belonged to another client of the Defendant. The Claimants demanded a refund of ₦7,500,000.00, being the overcharge, but the Defendant failed to make the repayment. The Claimants maintained that the funds advanced to the Defendant formed part of their operational capital obtained from commercial banks, on which interest continued to accrue. Despite repeated demands, both oral and written, the Defendant failed to refund the sums due.