There was drama on Wednesday at the Enugu State High Court when the First Bank of Nigeria Plc through its counsel tried to smuggle in a forged document into court during a cross examination of the first plaintiff in the suit over a deposit box containing jewellery that reportedly disappeared in the bank’s vault.
SaharaReporters had on Monday reported that the safe deposit box brought by a bank customer, Dr J Chinwe Eze Boulhasane, which contained jewellery disappeared from a branch of the First Bank in Enugu State.
It was also reported that the bank officials had kept the box in their vault and every month, the bank reportedly deducted an agreed sum from the customer's bank account as charges for the service.
The mother of the affected bank customer, who is the owner of the box containing the jewellery, is Ambassador Justina Eze, who was a fashionista in her prime and was also a big time businesswoman.
Eze-Boulhassane reportedly deposited the box containing assorted jewellries with the bank in 2000 and when they needed the safe deposit box the bank declared it missing, a development that led to the court action to compel the bank to produce it or pay the current monetary value of its content.
She had at the last adjourned date given her evidence in chief but the counsel of the bank could not cross-examine her. The court consequently adjourned the matter to Wednesday May 10, 2023 for cross-examination and continuation of hearing.
Eze-Boulhassane who was led in evidence by their counsel, Chief Olusola Oke, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria, had told the court that the bank shocked her one day by failing to produce her box when she demanded for it. She brought documents in support of the deposit to court for her testimony.
However, during her cross-examination on Wednesday at the resumed hearing, the counsel to the First Bank brought a document with a forged signature of the first plaintiff (Eze-Boulhassane). She denied the document and insisted that she never signed such a document with the bank manager and one other person.
To show that the signature was forged, she brought her international passport, drivers’ license and other documents bearing her signature to show the court that the bank document was fake and forged.
The bank counsel eventually withdrew the document.
Thereafter, Oke called his second witness, who gave his name as Nnaemeka Umeh.
Before giving his evidence, the lawyer adopted his witness' statement on oath dated July 8, 2021.
Giving his evidence Umeh said: “I know the Plaintiffs and the Defendant in this suit. The 1st Plaintiff is the daughter of the 2nd Plaintiff and both are my relations.
“I know of a fact that the Defendant is a Commercial Bank receiving and keeping monies and other valuables on behalf of her customers for fees. Sometimes in January 2000, the 1st Plaintiff invited me to come with her to the market to buy a steel box and I obliged her.
“After purchasing the steel box that day, she (2nd Plaintiff) also requested my company to the office of the Defendant in Enugu and we went there together with the box and a big carton which we took to the office of the Defendant's Manager. The 2nd Plaintiff carried the carton while I carried the box. Both the carton and the box were delivered to the Defendant's Branch Manager in the presence of another person described as the Accountant and she (the Branch Manager) received them.
“The Defendant's Manager removed the jewellries which were of different sizes, designs and shades from which the cartoon, one by one and examined them. I observed that she was taking notes. The Manager assisted by the Accountant after putting the jewellries back into their respective containers, packed them into the steel box one by one. The defendant's manager locked the box and handed the key over to the 1st plaintiff.
“The Defendant's Manager brought out a register and recorded the deposit of the jewellery box. She also completed a form to confirm the receipt of the jewellery box. A copy of the form countersigned by the Defendant's Accountant was given to the 1st plaintiff.
“I recall that when the 1st plaintiff went through the form, she complained about the fact that the Manager wrote on the form "Content unknown". The manager explained that what she wrote was the practice in the bank and that it was done so "for security reasons" so that workers would not know the contents of the box.
“I know of a fact that the jewellery box was carried away by the manager and the accountant. I and my cousin, the 1st Plaintiff, departed from the bank.
“I did not get to hear or know anything about the transaction until early 2021 when the 1st Plaintiff informed me that the Defendant claimed that the box was missing/lost.”
After cross-examinations by the bank’s lawyer, the presiding judge, Justice Chinyere Ajogwu adjourned the matter to June 29, 2023 for continuation of hearing.
In an interview shortly after the court session, Counsel to the Plaintiffs, Oke said, “The case is all about a deposit box of jewelleries with First Bank for safe keeping by the plaintiffs in the year 2000. And after a long while, of course the bank accepted and was charging for the keeping of the jewellery. After about four years or so the plaintiffs came and demanded for a retriever of the jewellery box.
"At last the bank could not produce it. After many letters the bank was pleading for time to be able to locate – time was being extended from time to time, letters were exchanged.
“At a point in time the bank declared the box missing and requested the plaintiffs through my office to make demand for the content of the box and my client made a demand; estimating the various items and the current cost at that time. And so a big surprise, the bank just made a U-turn and said it was not going to pay anything.
“So they have no other alternative than to come to court to ask the court to assist them in retrieving their box. That is what they were after mainly but in the event of the bank being unable to produce the box and the content for the bank to pay.”