News
Lagos lawyer drags AIICO Insurance company to court over breach of contract
A Lagos based legal practitioner,Chief Abdullai Tony Dania has slammed N12,987,343.42 suit on AIICO Insurance company over alleged breach of contract.
According to further and better affidavit sworn to by Litigation Manager, Mr Abimbola Mayowa in the office of Chief Abdullai Tony Dania counsel and the Plaintiff in this case.
The Plaintiff entered into an insurance policy contract with AIICO in the year 2007, with policy No. 12028081.
The Plaintiff kept to his side of the contract, and made financial deposits to the Insurance company periodically though he missed some years when he was on admission at Igbobi Orthopedic Hospital after surviving a fatal motor accident. As agreed he ought to be paid the sum of N1,987,343.42 by the Defendant, on the maturity date 24th April, 2022.
He wrote a letter dated 28/03/2022 upon suspicion of fraudulent acts in their relationship either on the part of the Defendant or her Agents or intermediaries, requesting to be furnished with a full Statement of Account and a proper update on his policy no. 12028081.
The Defendant responded to the letter under reference above vide their letter dated 11/04/22 and stated that receipts of payments were wrongly posted to one of Mr. Dania Tony Abdullai’s mature policy which caused variation in the assumed calculation of the surrender benefit given on the stated policy, has been collected.
The Plaintiff replied to the letter referred vide a letter dated 26/04/22 insisting that the Defendant furnish proof/evidence of the referred wrongful posting mentioned above and to further provide full statement of Account and proper update of his policy no. 12028081 and any other policy belonging to the Plaintiff
The Defendant further responded vide a letter dated 2/05/2022 explaining that the receipts of payment referred to as wrongly posted to another policy belonging to Mr. Dania Tony Abdullai in their letter of 11/04/22 have now been posted correctly to policy no. 18028081 and further stated that policy no. 18028081 has lapsed and can no longer receive maturity benefit as it does not meet up with the basic requirement for maturity payout.
The Plaintiff replied to the letter referenced vide a letter dated 9/05/2022 urging the Defendant to allow parties to amicably close the transaction on policy number 12028081 and the Plaintiff paid off, unfailingly, before the end of May, 2022, failing which, the Plaintiff shall instruct his lawyers accordingly.
That the policy became due on the 24th day of April, 2022.
However,when the Defendant refused, neglected and failed to pay the plaintiff
his premium which was calculated to be in the sum of N1,987,343.42.,
The Plaintiff wrote a complaint letter to the Honourable Commissioner of National Insurance Commission of Nigeria, reporting the refusal of the Defendant to pay him his premium.
AIICO General Insurance Plc, was copied with the above mentioned complaint letter and he has not received any response from the Defendant.
The defendant has refused to pay the Plaintiff’s insurance policy entitlement, which has become due and thus breached the insurance contract between them, and has also refused to respond to his letter.
Chief Dania contended that facts of this case are not contentious, they are very clear, unambiguous and incontrovertible; it is based on a contract executed between the two parties.
Consequently,the action of the Insurance has left the Plaintiff with no other option than to resort to court to recover his money from the Defendant,as he verily believe that the Defendant has no defense/response to this action as the sum demanded is a liquidated sum, therefore the case of the Defendant shall not in any way be prejudiced, if the prayers sought herein are granted.
A declaration that it was wrong, improper and amounted to breach of contract for the defendant to have refused to pay to the Plaintiff the sum of N1,987,343.42 (One Million Nine Hundred and Eighty Seven Thousand Three Hundred and Forty Three Naira, Forty Two Kobo, only which the defendant was supposed to pay to the Plaintiff, upon the maturity of the insurance contract, with policy No: 12028081 executed by both parties herein.
An order directing the Defendant to pay the claimant, the sum of N1,987,343.42 being the amount due for, and or standing to credit of the Plaintiff from the insurance policy and contract he executed with the Defendant.
An order directing the Defendant to pay the Plaintiff the sum of Ten Million Naira as general and exemplary damages, for the avoidable hardship extreme difficulties, psychological trauma,which the claimant, suffered as a result of the actions of the action of the defendant.
However,in a counter affidavit filed before the court, by the AIICO Insurance Company, the company while denying almost all the claims of Chief Abdullai Dania, stated thus: that the Claimant took out a bi-annual endowment insurance policy in 2007 with policy number 12028081. The policy was for a period of 15 (fifteen years) and mature in April, 2022
By the said policy, the Defendant was obliged to pay a premium of N581,571 bi-annually from April 2007 till April 2022, with a sum assured of N10,000,000 (Ten Million Naira) at maturity.
Ok under the policy, the Claimant is at liberty to make a 25% partial withdrawal after five years, the Claimant is also at liberty to make a 25% partial withdrawal after ten years and make a full withdrawal of the sum assured N10,000,000 fifteen years;(Ten Million Naira) plus a 3% revertionary bonus at maturity I.e. fifteen years.
The above benefits are only available to the claimant if he services the policy as and when due i.e.the claimant must be be paying his premium of N581,571every six months.
The Claimant breached the contract between him and the Defendant when he decided to pay his premium in bits as opposed to the bi-annual payment in the contract between them; after the payment of the sum of N85,000 in January, 2008, the Claimant refused to service the policy until three years later in 2011 and after the 2011 premium payment, the Claimant refused to service the insurance policy;
Sometime in 2008, the Claimant requested for the status of his policies with the Defendant and by a letter dated July 14, 2008, the Defendant responded that the Claimant’s policy No. 12028081 was in force. However, the bi-annual premium was overdue for payment.
Thereafter, the Claimant refused to service the policy until June 2011;
In 2010, the Claimant wrote to the defendant for the withdrawal of his policies.
In 2011, the Claimant further approached the Defendant to know the
state of his policy and the Defendant responded via a letter dated 12th May, 2011 where the Defendant further explained that the policy has lapsed and cannot be surrendered. The Defendant advised the Claimant to reinstate the policy by paying the outstanding premium of N4,070,997.
The Claimant refused to pay the outstanding premium of N4,070,997 above but paid the sum of N353,996, N250,000 and N215,205 which were not sufficient to reinstate the lapsed policy.
The Claimant, again, made a request to know the state of his policy and the Defendant responded via a letter dated 4th January, 2013 wherein the Claimant was informed that his outstanding premium was N5,826,650.51.
The assertion of the Claimant that he was involved in a fatal motor accident is an afterthought. The Claimant made the assertion for the first time in his affidavit and the Defendant was not notified of same.
The Claimant is not entitled to any sum at all as the Claimant refused to pay the bi-annual premium, as agreed at the inception of the contract.
The Claimant did not keep to his side of the contract. The Claimant is in arrears of the sum of N15,813,783 in outstanding premiums, as stated in the Endowment contract.
Defendant explained the circumstances of the wrong posting to the Claimant and same had been rectified.
The Claimant’s policy with the Defendant had lapsed and the Claimant is not entitled to any sum under the policy;
The Claimant wrote a Petition to the National Insurance Commission (NAICOM) against the Defendant.
The Defendant has responded to the allegations of the Claimant contained therein to NAICOM and the Claimant is having a copy of the Defendant’s response.
The Claimant did not wait for the outcome of his Petition to NAICOM before approaching this Honourable Court, despite receiving the Defendant’s response.
The Claimant has not exhausted all domestic fora before approaching this Honourable Court; and there is no material before this Honourable Court warranting the grant of the prayers sought by the Claimant.
Therefore,it will be in the interest of justice if this application is refused.
The presiding Judge, Yelin Bogoro has fixed 6th of July,2023 for judgement.
News
CBN Bars Chronic Loan Defaulters from Accessing New Banking Services
The Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) has issued a directive to all financial institutions to immediately restrict certain banking services for large-ticket borrowers with non-performing loans (NPLs).
This move is aimed at strengthening credit discipline and protecting the stability of the Nigerian financial system following a rise in the industry’s NPL ratio to approximately 7%, exceeding the regulatory 5% threshold.
This order is specifically targeted at large-ticket obligors.
The CBN issued the directive in a circular to banks on Monday.
The latest instruction comes almost a week after the CBN asked financial institutions to stress test.
It is uncertain if the two directives are connected or what may have triggered the loan-related instruction, but the apex bank said it furthers its mandate to protect Nigeria’s financial system.
“In furtherance of its mandate to promote a sound financial system, protect depositors, and enhance prudential compliance within the banking sector, the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) hereby directs all banks to restrict non-performing large ticket obligors, whose activities pose systemic risk to the financial system, from accessing specified banking services,” the circular reads in part.
“Any large-ticket obligor with a non-performing facility recorded in the CRMS and/or any licensed private credit bureau shall not be granted additional credit facilities. For the purpose of this restriction, credit facilities include loans and other forms of direct credit.
“In addition, such obligors shall not be granted banking facilities or contingent liabilities such as bankers’ confirmations, letters of credit, performance bonds, or advance payment guarantees.”
News
Makinde Only In PDP Because He’s Not Seeking Re-election – Otitoju
Babajide Kolade-Otitoju, the Director of News at TVC News, recently stated that Oyo State Governor Seyi Makinde would likely have defected from the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) if he was still serving his first term.
Otitoju stated this on Friday on TVC’s ‘Breakfast Show’.
He described the National Convention of the Peoples Democratic Party, PDP, in Ibadan last November as a mere waste of time.
“People must show good judgment at a critical phase. What was the point of having that convention? Two courts told you not to go ahead but you went ahead.
“I may not be a fan of former Senate President Bukola Saraki but if he says something that makes sense, I will be the first to admit it. He made sense when he said let’s go for caretaker. What’s the point of not listening to him?
“Later you will be shouting that the ruling party is behind your crisis, meanwhile you are the architect of your own misfortunes. You created this problem.
“If Makinde were in his first term, he would have fled like the dancing governor because his second term would have been in danger,” Otitoju said.
News
Corruption Probe: Court Grants ICPC Access To Data On El-Rufai’s Seized Gadgets
The Federal High Court in Abuja has granted the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC) permission to access and forensically examine about 14 sets of electronic devices seized from the residence of former Kaduna State Governor, Nasir El-Rufai.
Justice Joyce Abdulmalik issued the order yesterday while ruling on an ex-parte motion filed by the ICPC and moved by its lawyer, Dr. Osuobeni Akponimisingha.
The commission said it needed to access the devices for inspection, forensic examination and extraction of data in furtherance of its ongoing investigation of the former governor.
The devices include a Sony HD-EGS storage device, an ITB Transcend storage device, a Toshiba storage device, a Samsung mobile phone, a Nokia mobile phone – N958GB, a Blackberry mobile phone device and a Google IDEOS phone.
Others are a Samsung storage device – SPO802N, a Remarkable tablet, an Apple MacBook Pro – black, a Seagate FreeAgent Desk external drive, a ZTE mobile phone, 10 pieces of flash drives and a Microcell memory card.
Justice Abdulmalik, in the ruling, granted the commission access to the gadgets “for inspection, forensic examination and forensic extraction of data, including public documents, WhatsApp conversations, text messages, pictures, call logs and related information, and to analyse same forensically or otherwise from the said electronic devices which were seized in the course of investigation for the purpose of investigation activity.”
El-Rufai is currently before the same court challenging the search of his house and seeking, among others, N1 billion in compensation.
Listed as respondents in the suit, marked FHC/ABJ/CS/345/2026, are the ICPC; the Chief Magistrate at the Magistrate’s Court of the FCT, Abuja; the Inspector-General of Police (IGP); and the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF).
El-Rufai is challenging the propriety of the recent search of his Asokoro, Abuja residence by agents of the ICPC, during which some items were recovered.
The former governor, who is seeking a number of reliefs, wants the court to declare that the search warrant issued on February 4 by the Chief Magistrate of the Magistrate’s Court of the FCT (2nd respondent), authorising the search of his residence and seizure of items, was invalid, null and void.
He also wants a declaration that the search warrant is “null and void for lack of particularity, material drafting errors, ambiguity in execution parameters, overbreadth and absence of probable cause, thereby constituting an unlawful and unreasonable search in violation of Section 37 of the Constitution.”
El-Rufai is urging the court to declare that the alleged invasion and search of his residence at House 12, Mambilla Street, Aso Drive, Abuja, on February 19 at about 2 pm by agents of the ICPC and the IGP, who were armed with the said warrant, amounted to a gross violation of his rights to dignity of the human person, personal liberty, fair hearing and privacy under Sections 34, 35, 36 and 37 of the Constitution.
He is also asking the court to award N1,000,000,000.00 (one billion naira) “as general, exemplary and aggravated damages against the respondents jointly and severally for the violations of the applicant’s fundamental rights, including trespass, unlawful seizure and the resultant psychological trauma, humiliation, distress, infringement of privacy and reputational harm.”
He contends that the search warrant was fundamentally defective, lacking specificity in the description of items to be seized, containing material typographical errors, ambiguous execution terms, overbroad directives and no verifiable probable cause.
He argued that the lack of specificity in the warrant contravenes Sections 143–148 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act 2015, Section 36 of the ICPC Act 2000 and constitutional protections against arbitrary intrusions.
According to him, Section 143 of the ACJA requires that an application for a search warrant be supported by information in writing and on oath, setting forth reasonable grounds for suspicion, which he said was absent in this case, as evidenced by the incomplete initiating clause.
He said Section 144 mandates particular descriptions of the place to be searched and the items sought to prevent general warrants, adding that the search was conducted without legal justification and in a manner that inflicted humiliation and distress.
El-Rufai further argued that execution of the said invalid warrant on February 19 resulted in an unlawful invasion of his premises, constituting violations of the rights to dignity (Section 34), personal liberty (Section 35), fair hearing (Section 36) and privacy (Section 37) of the Constitution.
-
News1 day agoWorld War III Fears: Zelensky Reveals Warning To Trump
-
News1 day ago2027 Shakeup: 12 Lawmakers Defect To APC, ADC
-
News2 days agoTensions Rise As Makoko Communities Vow To Resist Relocation Order
-
News22 hours agoTerror Surge: Tinubu Demands Results from Security Chiefs
-
News11 hours agoCorruption Probe: Court Grants ICPC Access To Data On El-Rufai’s Seized Gadgets
-
News7 hours agoMakinde Only In PDP Because He’s Not Seeking Re-election – Otitoju
-
News15 hours agoBeyond My Wildest Dreams: Disu Opens Up During Handover From Egbetokun
-
News6 hours agoCBN Bars Chronic Loan Defaulters from Accessing New Banking Services
