Facts:

As a customer of the cross-appellant, the cross-respondent sought and was granted various overdraft facilities by the cross-appellant. The overdraft facilities were secured with the certificate of occupancy of Mr. Innocent Okorie, the alter ego of the cross-respondent.

Subsequently, the cross-respondent alleged that the cross-appellant failed to credit some of its lodgments into its account and also overcharged interest on the overdraft facilities. The cross-respondent based its allegations on the reports of two accounting firms, and on a joint report which emanated from the intervention by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC). The cross-respondent claimed that the cross-appellant refused to pay to it the un-credited lodgments and overcharged interests after it had repaid overdraft facilities granted to it.

Consequently, the cross-respondent sued the cross-appellant and claimed for various monetary reliefs. The cross-respondent also sought release of the statutory certificate of occupancy belonging to Mr. Innocent Okorie, its Managing Director, which was used as collateral for an overdraft facility the cross-respondent alleged it had repaid.

In reaction, the cross-appellant filed a statement of defence, denied liability and joined issue with the cross-respondent. The cross-appellant alleged that the cross-respondent was indebted to it because it failed to repay the sums involved in the overdraft facilities. As a result, it counter-claimed for an amount as due from the cross-respondent under the loan and overdraft facilities; interest on the amount; and costs of the suit.

Trial commenced and both parties called witnesses and adduced evidence. One of the documents was admitted in evidence as exhibit G. It was a report made with the involvement of both parties. The report stated N10,883,665 lodgment was not credited to the cross-respondent’s account; that the cross-appellant overcharged N1,613,820.41 as interest on the loan facilities; and that the cross-appellant charged N1,031,252.02 against the cross-respondent’s account as penal charges, Commission On Turnover (COT) and Value Added Tax (VAT). The cross-respondent, however did not claim for the penal charges, COT, and VAT in its statement of claim.

The trial court delivered a considered judgment in which it granted the main claim and the counter-claim in parts, and awarded N13,528,737.16 to the cross-respondent. That amount included N1,031,252.02 the trial court awarded as the sum of penal charges, COT, and VAT the cross-appellant charged against the cross-respondent’s account.

Dissatisfied with the decision of the trial court, the cross-appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal.