How To Prove Money Paid Into Bank

1.OKPOKO COMMUNITY BANK LTD.
2.PETER ONUEGBU
(Manager, Okpoko Community Bank Ltd.)
v.
DR.P.C.IGWE
COURT OF APPEAL
(ENUGU DIVISION)
CA/E/375120(
ABUBAKAR JEGAABDUL-KADIR, J.e.A. (Presided)
JOHN INYANG OKORO, J.C.A. (Read the Leading Judgment)
Issues:
1.whether or not the respondent discharged the burden of proof required of him to be entitled to judgment.
2.Whether the failure of the appellants to adduce viva voce evidence at trial automatically entitled the respondent to obtain judgment.
Facts:
The respondent, a medi
cal doctor, at the trial court sued the appellants, community bank operators and claimed amongst others: N2 ,986 ,83 8 .57k being the fixed deposit and amount accruing thereon as at 3st March, 2004; N166,857.65k being amount in respondent’s current account as at 3st March, 2004; interest at 5 per cent per annum on the said sum until judgment and interest at 4 per cent per annum until the judgment is satisfied.
Originally, the suit was brought under the undefended list but was later transferred to the general cause list. Both parties exchanged pleadings. The respondent alleged in his statement of claim that the 2nd appellant persuaded him to fix the sum of N2,160,810.00 with the lst appellant. That upon maturity, he demanded for the money including accrued interest but the appellants failed to pay him.
The appellants in their statement of defence averred that the alleged fixed deposit was cancelled and that it was merged with current account and that the respondent withdrew the money leaving a deficit account. The appellants counter-claimed against the respondent for the money in the deficit.
At the trial, the respondent testified and called one witness in proof of his case. The appellants did not testify and did not call any evidence. Rather, they relied on the case of the respondent. Counsel for both parties filed their written addresses.
At the conclusion of hearing, the trial court entered judgment for the respondent.
Dissatisfied with the stance of the trial court, the appellants filed notice of appeal.
Held (Unanimously dismissing the appeal):
1.On Ways of proving payment of money into bank –
The best way of proving payment of money into a bank account is by the production of a bank teller or an acknowledgment showing on the face of it that the bank received the payment. However, where money is deposited in a bank and a certificate is issued to the customer, that certificate, when produced, will suffice. In the instant case, the certificate of deposit was alleged to be with the appellants which they had not denied. (P.186,paras. E-F)
2.On Whether pleadings constitute evidence and effect of failure to give evidence in support of pleadings –
Pleadings cannot constitute evidence and a party, as in the instant case, who does not give evidence in support of his pleadings or in challenge of the evidence of the adverse party, is deemed to have accepted and rested his case on the facts adduced by his opponent notwithstanding his general traverse in the case. [Ifeta v. S.PD.CN. Ltd. (2006) 8 NWLR (Pt. 983) 585 referred to.] (P.181,paras. C-D)
3.On Whether pleadings constitute evidence and treatment of averments on pleadings not supported with evidence –
Pleadings do not constitute evidence. Therefore, where a pleading is not supported by evidence, oral or documentary, it is deemed by the court as having been abandoned. In this case, although the appellants filed a statement of defence, they failed to adduce evidence in support thereof. In the circumstance, the averments were deemed abandoned. [Yusufv. Oyetunde (1998) 12 NWLR (Pt. 579) 483; Omoboriowo v. Ajasin (1984) 1 SCNLR 108; Ezeanah v. Attah (2004) 7 NWLR (Pt. 873) 468 referred to.] (P.184,paras. F-D)
4.On Treatment of averments in pleadings not supported with evidence –
Averments in pleadings on which no evidence is adduced, are deemed to have been abandoned as mere averment without proof of facts pleaded does not constitute proof of such facts unless such facts are admitted. In the instance case, there was no evidence touching and concerning the status of the 2nd appellant. [U.B.N. PIc v. Ayodare & Sons (Nig.) Ltd. (2007) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1052) 567 referred to.] (P.181,paras.D-E)
5.On Treatment of unchallenged evidence –
Where evidence given by a party to any proceedings or by his witness is not challenged by the opposite side who had the opportunity to do so, it is always open to the court seized of the matter to act on such unchallenged evidence. Where a defendant offered no evidence whatsoever in his defence, the evidence before the court obviously goes one way with no other set of facts or evidence to weigh against it.
There is nothing in such a situation to be put on the other side of the imaginary scale of the balance, as against the evidence given by or on behalf of the plaintiff. The onus of proof in such a case is usually discharged on a minimal of proof. [Adegoke v. Adibi (1992) 5 NWLR (Pt. 242) 410; Jiaza v. Bamgbose (1999) 7 NWLR (Pt.610) 182 referred to.] (Pp.183- 184, paras. G-C)
6.On Effect of failure of defendant to adduce evidence –
Where a defendant fails to adduce evidence to put on the other side of-the imaginary scale of justice, a minimum evidence adduced by plaintiff will suffice to prove his case. (P. 183, para . F)
7.On Effect of failure of defendant to adduce evidence
and resting his case on that of the plaintiff –
Where a defendant refuses to adduce evidence in his defence and rests his case on the evidence of the plaintiff, as was done in the instant case, then the trial court is entitled to find for the plaintiff based on his evidence. To make it more explicit, where a plaintiff adduces oral credible evidence which establishes his claim against the defendant in terms of the writ or statement of claim, and that evidence is not rebutted by the defence either by challenging the same under cross-examination or by controverting same in evidence, the plaintiff is entitled to judgment. The reason for saying so is that such attitude of the defendant is interpreted to mean that he has accepted or deemed to have accepted the pleadings and evidence of or the case of the plaintiff. The standard of proof in such circumstance is minimal. [Buraimoh v. Bamgbose (1989) 3 NWLR (Pt. 109) 352; Tsokwa Oil Marketing Co. (Nig.) Ltd. v. B.ON. Ltd. (2002) 11 NWLR (Pt. 777) 163; Okoebor v. Police Council (2003) 12 NWLR (Pt.834) 444 referred to.] (P. 184, paras. C – F)
8.On Effect where defendant rests his case on that of plaintiff –
Where a defendant rests his case on that of the plaintiff, such a stance is a legal strategy and not a mistake. The implication is that:
(a) the defendant is stating that the plaintiff has not made out any case for the defendant to respond to; or
(b) he admits the facts of the case as stated by the plaintiff; or
(c) he has a complete defence in answer to the plaintiff’s case.
In the instant case, from the grounds of appeal and the issues formulated for determination, the appellants herein relied on the first option, that the respondent failed to make out a case for them to defend. [Aguocha v. Aguocha (2005) 1 NWLR (Pt. 906) 165; Akanbi v. Alao (1989) 3 NWLR (Pt. 108) 118; N.E.P.A. v. Olagunju (2005) 3 NWLR (Pt. 913) 602 referred to.] (P.188, paras. D-G)
9.On Burden of proof on plaintiff where defendant fails to adduce evidence –
Where the defendant fails to adduce evidence to counter or challenge the evidence of the plaintiff, the burden of proof on the plaintiff is minimal.
In the instant case, the main evidence before the court was that the respondent deposited money in a fixed deposit account with the appellants. That the certificate of deposit was collected back by the 2nd appellant and that they failed to repay the money at maturity. The appellants failed and/or refused to produce the certificate of deposit or deny it. Secondly, the appellants failed and/or refused to say either that the respondent did not deposit such money or that the money had been repaid.
The appellants equally failed to admit or deny the account numbers which the respondents said he kept with the appellants. The respondent proved his case before the trial court and stated that he deposited the sum of N2,160.810.00 and that as at 31st March, 2004, the amount with agreed interest had risen to N2,986,857.57k. The respondent also stated that he had the sum of N166,857.65k in his current account with the appellants. There was enough evidence which the trial court relied upon to enter judgment for the respondent. (P. 189, paras. D-H).

L-R: Assistant Force Public Relation Officer, sp Seji Ezegam; Force Public Relation Officer, csp Frank Mba and Deputy Force Public Relation Officer, sp Abayomi Shogunle, addressing a news conference on the arrest of alleged fake recruitment syndicate in Abuja, last Friday. Photo: NAN