Principle Statement

A plaintiff alleging illegality of interest charged must plead: (a) the rate charged, (b) the rate chargeable or ceiling under statutory guidelines, and (c) the difference between the interest charged and the approved rate.

Ratio Decidendi (Source)

Per Oguntade, JSC, in M.O. Kanu, Sons & Company Limited v. First Bank of Nigeria Plc (2006) NLC-123-349-2001(SC) at pp. 5–6; Paras B–A.

"It is settled law that a plaintiff whose case is that the defendant has been guilty of malpractices amounting to an illegality must set out the particulars of the nature of the illegality pleaded or involved. In Akinbola George & Ors. v. Dominion Flour Mills Ltd [1963] 1 All N.L.R. 71, this Court held that where a contract is not ex facie illegal, and the question whether or not it is illegal depends on the circumstances, as a general rule, the court will not entertain arguments on the question of illegality unless it was raised on the pleadings. That translates, in this case, to the necessity for the plaintiff to plead (a) the rate of interest charged by the defendant, (b) the rate chargeable or ceiling laid under any statutory guidelines and (c) the difference between the interest charged and the approved rate."

Explanation / Scope

Illegality of interest must be specifically pleaded with particulars. The principle applies to banking law.

Cases Applying This Principle