N200bn Credit Dispute: Appeal Court Upholds First Bank’s Victory

The Court of Appeal, Abuja, on Friday dismissed the appeal filed by the Nigerian Agricultural Insurance Corporation (NAIC) against First Bank of Nigeria in the long-running dispute over the disbursement of the Federal Government’s N200 billion Commercial Agriculture Credit Scheme.

The decision was one of seven precedent-setting judgments delivered in six hours same day by Justice Okon Abang, underscoring his reputation as a relentlessly hardworking, firm, and uncompromisingly principled jurist whose rulings continue to shape Nigeria’s legal landscape across criminal, human rights, banking, and civil litigation.

NAIC had, in 2013, dragged First Bank before the Federal High Court via originating summons, alleging the bank failed to deduct the mandatory 2.5% premium connected to the agriculture credit scheme. First Bank promptly filed a counter-affidavit and written address, with both sides joining issues and exchanging further processes over the years.

But when the case was ripe for hearing, NAIC sought to suddenly withdraw its suit—claiming an unnamed Bankers’ Committee representative had approached it for an out-of-court settlement.

First Bank objected, insisting that once pleadings had been exchanged, withdrawal without consent should lead to dismissal, not a mere striking out. To strike out, the bank argued, would allow NAIC a second bite at the cherry—an abuse of process.

The Federal High Court agreed and dismissed the suit, prompting NAIC to head to the Court of Appeal.

Delivering the unanimous judgment of the Court of Appeal, Justice Abang held that NAIC’s appeal was “grossly misconceived.”

He ruled that having seen the bank’s defence, NAIC attempted to retreat and re-strategize “only being smart, believing that it could cunningly manipulate judicial proceedings to save a suit that appears weak and manifestly unsupported.”

He stressed that once a defendant’s counter-affidavit has been served, any withdrawal by the claimant must naturally lead to dismissal, not striking out, to avoid overreaching the respondent.

Justice Abang quoted with approval the trial court’s earlier stance:

“Since issues have been joined and the matter has previously been adjourned on several occasions, the proper order to make on the application of the plaintiff is to dismiss the suit.”

The Court of Appeal also questioned NAIC’s reliance on an alleged intervention by the Bankers’ Committee—a non-party that had earlier resisted being joined in the matter.