Access Bank Plc v. Nivik Investment Ltd. & Ors. [2026]

By

Introduction

A bank tried to walk away from its own lawsuit — and paid for the attempt three times over: at trial, at the Court of Appeal, and finally at the Supreme Court, where its lawyer was personally ordered to hand over five million naira.

Facts of the Case

The appellant, then known as Intercontinental Bank Plc, sued the three respondents at the Federal High Court, Akure, filing the full set of originating processes — writ of summons, statement of claim, list of exhibits, and copies of the exhibits themselves. The 1st and 2nd respondents responded properly, filing a statement of defence and a counter-claim of their own.

At that point, the appellant changed lawyers. Its new counsel, rather than pressing on with the case, filed a notice of discontinuance — a formal withdrawal of the suit — without giving any reason for the change of heart. The trial court's response to that withdrawal was to dismiss the action outright.

Unhappy with a dismissal rather than a simple withdrawal, the appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal. That court heard the appeal fully on its merits and dismissed it, affirming the trial court's order. Still dissatisfied, the appellant carried the fight to the Supreme Court.

Resolution of the Questions for Determination

On what the correct order actually is when a plaintiff tries to walk away from a case after the defence has already responded, the Court set out the governing rule plainly: once a defendant has filed a statement of defence and the two sides have properly joined issue on the dispute, a plaintiff's discontinuance doesn't simply end the matter quietly — the correct response from the trial court is to dismiss the suit. By the time the appellant's new counsel filed the notice of discontinuance here, the 1st and 2nd respondents had already filed their defence and counter-claim; issue had already been joined. Walking away at that stage, without explanation, was exactly the scenario this rule addresses, and dismissal was the only proper order available.

On why the Supreme Court wasn't going to disturb what two lower courts had already agreed on, the Court reiterated a principle it applies often: stepping in to override findings that a trial court and the Court of Appeal have both already reached the same way isn't something it does lightly — an appellant needs to show something genuinely out of the ordinary before that happens. Having gone through the full record and the reasoning of both lower courts, the Court found nothing in the appellant's arguments that came close to clearing that bar — no exceptional circumstance, and nothing cogent enough to justify a different outcome the third time around.

Final Verdict

The Supreme Court unanimously dismissed the appeal, affirmed the Court of Appeal's judgment upholding the trial court's dismissal of the suit, and ordered costs of ₦5 million against the appellant — to be paid personally by the appellant's own counsel, rather than by the bank itself.

Key Takeaways

  • Trying to discontinue a suit after the other side has filed a defence and issue has been joined doesn't lead to a quiet exit — it leads to dismissal.
  • Concurrent findings from two lower courts are genuinely difficult to overturn. The Supreme Court needs exceptional circumstances, not just a third attempt at the same arguments that already failed twice.
  • Costs can be awarded personally against counsel, separate from the client, where a court considers the litigation conduct to warrant it — a real, practical risk beyond simply losing the case.
  • Withdrawing a suit without stating any reason, at a late procedural stage, invites exactly the scrutiny this case shows — courts want to know why a plaintiff who once wanted to litigate suddenly doesn't.

In Practice

Before filing any notice of discontinuance, it's worth checking exactly where the case stands procedurally — specifically, whether the other side has already filed a defence and whether issue has been joined. Once that's happened, a plaintiff no longer has a free walk-away option; the likely result is dismissal, which — unlike a simple withdrawal — can carry res judicata consequences for any future attempt to bring the same claim. Where a change of counsel prompts a strategic rethink mid-case, documenting the actual reason for discontinuing, rather than filing a bare notice, may help avoid exactly the kind of costs order handed down here.

Related Reading

This case connects naturally with other posts on this blog dealing with how far the Supreme Court will go to disturb decisions two lower courts have already agreed on:

This post is based on the reported judgment of the Supreme Court of Nigeria and is intended for informational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Tenant at Will or Yearly Tenant? What a Landlord-Tenant Dispute Teaches Us About Proving Oral Agreements: Odutola v. Papersack (Nig.) Ltd. (2006) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1012) 470 — Supreme Court of Nigeria

By
Image
If you've ever relied on a verbal understanding instead of getting it in writing, this case is a cautionary tale. It's a dispute over a warehouse in Lagos that turned entirely on one question: can you prove a tenancy existed just by saying so — or does the law demand more? The Property at the Centre of It All The dispute concerned premises at 44, Eric Moore Road, Iganmu Industrial Estate, Lagos. The first appellant owned the property outright and was also the founder, majority shareholder, and Managing Director of the second appellant, a company that had taken over the unexpired interest in the property from December 1991. According to the appellants, the original tenant of the property was a different company entirely — Thoresen and Co. (Nig.) Ltd — whose tenancy expired in 1980, then got a brief extension to 1982. The respondent, Papersack (Nig.) Ltd, moved into the property during Thoresen's tenancy, initially without the appellants' consent. It later paid rent for a...
Read more

F.R.N. v. Lamido [2026]

By
Image
A note before we begin: the underlying criminal trial in this matter is not concluded. This appeal was about a preliminary ruling only — whether the trial court had the territorial jurisdiction to hear the case at all, and a procedural question about how the notice of appeal was framed. Nothing in the Supreme Court's decision below is a finding of guilt or innocence on the substantive charges, which the trial court has now been directed to continue hearing. The respondent is presumed innocent unless and until that trial concludes with a finding to the contrary. Introduction This was an appeal by the Federal Republic of Nigeria against a Court of Appeal ruling that had discharged the respondent from a money laundering and conspiracy charge, on the basis that the trial court lacked territorial jurisdiction to hear it. The Supreme Court, unanimously, allowed the appeal and sent the matter back for the trial to continue. Fact of the Case The respondent, together with seven othe...
Read more

You Struck Out the Plaintiff's Claim— But You Still Owe Him a Hearing Notice: Osumuo v. Udeaja [2026] 11 NWLR (Pt. 2052) 443 — Supreme Court of Nigeria

By
Imagine winning a court case worth a piece of prime land in Nnewi — only to have that victory wiped out years later, not because your evidence was weak, but because the man on the other side never got a notice telling him when to show up. That is the entire story of Osumuo v. Udeaja. It is a reminder that in Nigerian courts, a judgment can be procedurally spotless and legally doomed at the same time, if one small, unglamorous document — the hearing notice — never left the registry. The Facts The land at the centre of the fight, known as "Mbana" and sitting along the Onitsha–Owerri Road in Nnewi, Anambra State, had been leased out in 1953 for a term of 99 years. Decades later, the lessee's successor sued the lessor's successor, Andrew Osumuo, claiming a right to continued possession of the land, a declaration that a fresh lump-sum demand for ₦600,000 was improper, and other reliefs. Osumuo, once served, denied the claims and fired back with his own counter-claim: he wa...
Read more