Facts:

Facts:
The plaintiff, who is a customer of the 1st defendant is a Nigerian company
engaged in the business of transportation and distribution of oil and gas. The 1st
defendant is a Nigerian company engaged in banking business. In April, 2007
the plaintiff negotiated a facility with the 1st defendant in order to purchase a
5000 metric tonne Marine Tanker Vessel with the 2nd defendant acting as agent
of the South Korean seller. Under the arrangement, the 1st defendant was to
provide 80% of the funds while the plaintiff was to provide an equity funding of
20% to be deposited with the 1st defendant as condition precedent to the grant of
the facility. The total cost of the 5000 metric tonne Marine Tanker Vessel was put
at $1,800,000.00 (One Million, Eight Hundred Thousand United States Dollars).
However, the transaction fell through and another arrangement was made for a
similar vessel which total cost was stated to be $3,850,000.00 (Three Million,
Eight Hundred and Fifty Thousand United States Dollars) to which the plaintiff
was required to make an equity contribution of $385,000.00 (Three Hundred and
Eighty Five Thousand United States Dollars) and the 1st defendant was to finance
the balance. Pursuant to the arrangement, the parties engaged in several
negotiations which culminated into a contract and consequently, the plaintiff
deposited the sum of $385,000.00 (Three Hundred and Eighty Five Thousand
United States Dollars) into its account with the 1st defendant. Part of the agreement
was that the purchase price will be disbursed to the sellers after inspection of the
vessel and a notice signed by the parties to that effect indicating satisfaction with
the state of the vessel.
The plaintiff’s representative, in the company of the 1st defendant’s official travelled
to South Korea for inspection of the vessel and thereafter a letter was sent to the
1st defendant by the plaintiff stating its reservation about the condition of the
vessel and urging the 1st defendant not to disburse the funds. In spite of this
reservation, the 1st defendant disbursed the funds to the seller who failed to deliver the vessel to the plaintiff after allegedly collecting the total purchase price.
The plaintiff felt shortchanged by the 2nd defendant’s role in the transaction and
sought to recover, to no avail, the money paid to him. However, in 2013 the 1st
defendant sent a letter of demand to the plaintiff asking for repayment of the
facility.
The plaintiff responded to the letter of demand by instituting a claim against the
defendants at the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja alleging that
the defendants were grossly negligent in negotiating the transaction. The plaintiff
sought to be discharged from the loan transaction on the grounds of non
disclosure, fraudulent misrepresentation, collusion, undue influence and breach
of fiduciary duties by the defendants. Furthermore, the plaintiff sought an order
of the court directing the defendants to refund to it the $385,000.00 (Three
Hundred and Eighty Five Thousand United States Dollars) it paid to the 1st defendant
as equity funding plus accrued interest.