A Lagos State High Court Igbosere has adjourned till November 16, suit by Infinity Snacks and Beverages Limited, seeking N2, 076,801,430 42 from Stanbic IBTC Bank as damages for alleged breach of contract.
In the suit filed by its counsel, Olumide Sofowora (SAN) before Justice A.M Lawal of a Lagos State High Court, Igbosere, the firm said it suffered economic misfortunes for the bank’s conduct.
According to its December 23, 2016 statement of claim, it received approval for a N934,029,835 loan for factory expansion from the Bank of Industry (BOI) Limited on August 19, 2014.
It said BOI required a bank guarantee as one of the conditions for the loan and the firm sought this from Stanbic IBTC Bank, “which was not issued until December 22, 2015, about four months after the approval of the loan by BOI.
It further noted that BOI disbursed N864.420,000 into the bank’s account in the firm’s name on May 9, 2016, b ut according to the firm, Stanbic IBTC did not inform it until May 17, 2016.
The firm said it immediately mandated the bank to bid for foreign exchange for the purchase of the needed machinery for its expansion”.
It alleged that the bank placed “stumbling blocks”, along the way by tying the BOI loan to its own loan portfolio granted to the firm.
However, the defendant, in a statement of defence filed through its counsel, Mr. Paul Usoro rejected the plaintiff’s claims.
It said: “The defendant denies that there was an initial approval from BOI but rather that what the claimant received was an indicative offer from BOI of its intention to grant the claimant’s loan request of the sum of N934,029,835 subject to the claimant fulfilling the conditions for the grant of same.
The defendant states that it did not hold back but swung into action almost immediately the claimants notified it of BOT’s indicative offer, request for a Bank Guarantee (BG) and a letter of intent on behalf of the claimant from a reputable financial institution amongst other conditions precedent to granting the claimant the BOI facility.
“The defendant avers that on the contrary, it is the claimant who failed to meet the defendant’s pre-conditions for issuing a bank guarantee in its favour.”
Go to Source
Author: The Tide