Hmmmmmm
The bank might even want to compensate for the loss.....
However, Nigerians that I know will soooooo inflate the actual amount involved.

Adinije: if u haven't deposited ur money and it got stloen, it's ur loss but if u have just deposited and the bank got robbed immediately then it's the bank's loss.

My taught too

Jamb question

Under the Banking Law the relationship between a customer and the bank is that of bailee and bailor and under the same provision not every body who does business with the bank is regarded a customer at law..for u to be properly called a customer of a bank you must have a valid account in line wit d relevant laws prescribed by the bank, by virtue of dat the relationship as regards where liability lies its stricto sensus very clear, the bank is onli liable for the lost of monies been deposited in ur account and not that which is lost within the premises if a reverse is the case it will cause untold hardship to the bank and d courts to ascertain the exact amount that was stolen as certain individuals may bring frivolous claims...so until the bank agent receives ur money the liability is on the customer if any lost should arise.ipso facto do so mean that you can't sue..talking frm the stand point of banking law and not common sense

victorazy:

My taught too

My taught thoughts too

transaction has not taken place so the answer is no....you dint give them any money so you cant sue them, BTW if you sue them what will you say in the law court? armed robbers collected the money in their bank premeses? ok how much? thats wen thier lawyer will say it could be #10 you came to deposit and you can't jst proove the robbers stole millions from you.

pembisco: transaction has not taken place so the answer is no....you dint give them any money so you cant sue them, BTW if you sue them what will you say in the law court? armed robbers collected the money in their bank premeses? ok how much? thats wen thier lawyer will say it could be #10 you came to deposit and you can't jst proove the robbers stole millions from you.

I believe you can by showing them live camera update of what took place in the bank to show that robbers stole your money. Well, the bottom line of this topic is , if you have not transacted with the bank and the robber(s) came in during the scene and part away with your money, forget it as you cannot get back your money from the bank.

Even if you have a right of action against the bank, the other consideration is, the delay and corruption in the judicial process. Yes, anyone can initiate a suit in court but it takes 8-10 years for a case to move from the High court to final conclusion at the Supreme court. And the case would likely get to the supreme court because the bank's lawyers will ensure that litigation is maintained without exploring out-of-court settlement. In the end it's the lawyers on both side that will swell their bank accounts. As for the bank and the robbery victim, well, they will have to lick their wounds - years wasted for the case to thrown out on legal technicality or some spurious ground.

@OP the fact is very clear that the bank is only liable to depositors fund in deposit with them and not fund in the depositor care within the bank premises...Henceforth,ensure you always go to the bank with a jack knife,if you don't have a gun to protect your fund in your pocket or bag until it is deposited...Yes,i said so since the bank is not liable to compensate you for any loss should you be robbed within their premises. I am sure you don't want to be in police cell this 2014... happy new month.

Kirinwa: Very funny and yet serious.Reminds me of a story told of a man who thieves came to his house.The man begged the thieves to allow him pay the landlord also living in the same building house rent after which they are free to claim it.

Boy the money is lost.

Kirinwa: Very funny and yet serious.Reminds me of a story told of a man who thieves came to his house.The man begged the thieves to allow him pay the landlord also living in the same building house rent after which they are free to claim it.

Boy the money is lost.

Kai I bet this kind of argument started under a tree while una bin dey hi n sip something ah swear. Bin there, raised some creazy ideas and then argue upon it more as d high level increases. Hehehe.

from banking act... even if u are inside d bank and d cashier hasn't received d money signed and stamped.... d bank is not liable... also when d cash is being received by the cashier and in d process of counting,.without signing and stamping and robbers attacked... d bank is not liable. The condition Where d bank is liable is when the duty of a cashier has being discharged meaning when the money has being received, signed and stamped.... d bank is liable for damages. In ur case d bank is nt liable.

BY Silver: Under the Banking Law the relationship between a customer and the bank is that of bailee and bailor and under the same provision not every body who does business with the bank is regarded a customer at law..for u to be properly called a customer of a bank you must have a valid account in line wit d relevant laws prescribed by the bank, by virtue of dat the relationship as regards where liability lies its stricto sensus very clear, the bank is onli liable for the lost of monies been deposited in ur account and not that which is lost within the premises if a reverse is the case it will cause untold hardship to the bank and d courts to ascertain the exact amount that was stolen as certain individuals may bring frivolous claims...so until the bank agent receives ur money the liability is on the customer if any lost should arise.ipso facto do so mean that you can't sue..talking frm the stand point of banking law and not common sense

......dats d position of d law as regards banking law...to support it,see d case of, foley v hill and joachinson v swiss bank corp......sorry,cnt give citations,my books are still in calabar....bt dose cases establishes d fact once u deposit ur mony,its no longer ur mony bt d bank's own...it is wen u make demand for ur cash and d bank refuses,nw den u can sue....bt once ur still with ur mony in d banking hall,its still ur mony,no liability on d bank incase of a break out....*ex ni hillo ni hil fit**(u can place nofin on smtin nd xpct it to stand)

@ Op, as long as you were not issued a deposit slip/ teller, the Bank is not liable for the loss of undeposited cash during a raid/ robbery. For some banks, they may want to compensate you for the loss to save their face/ brand.

The justice system in this country is so messy so even if u sue them, they'll drag the case for yrs. Trust me, I'm a banker & I know how it goes. Quite unfortunate how things go down in this country.

The mod incharge of sports section don die or hangover dey worryam? How come no update of all matches today on frontpage. Any Mancity 1-0 Swansea yet to. They shld draw d match abeg. Gooooaaaallll! Swansea 1 - 1 is gona be draw!

albiol: Where is that guy that always shout I am a lawyer

bwhahahaha now you need him he won't turn up...but if its a thread about minor things he'll start shouting don't qoute me I'm a lawyer that dude funny sha

op, I want u not to only understand that u can't be compensated
by the bank inasmuchas the money is collected from u;
but also to note that if it were to be that u are withdrawing
and the cashier had already handed over the money to u b4 d
robber collected it, u and only u bear the lost.

Under banker customer relationship banks are not liable for cash not accepted for deposits into customers account. Even if the cash has been counted but deposit slip not stamped and handed over, liability remains with the customer

In the same vein, cash payments debited to the customers account during withdrawal but not yet handed over to the customers remain the liability of the bank during robbery incidence.

Banking laws are based on legal cases and lord Denning has ruled on this on two cases

Kirinwa: Very funny and yet serious.Reminds me of a story told of a man who thieves came to his house.The man begged the thieves to allow him pay the landlord also living in the same building house rent after which they are free to claim it.

Boy the money is lost.

Adinije: anything (gadgets, money gold car)u take to the bank is still at ur risk except if it has been deposited

does that include my brokos?

kaka is planning a heist and BL koko on nl is assisting him.....kaka is a suspect...danger...throws banger on this thread and hides

It is apt to say that there is no liability imposed on an owner of a property/ business for any crime committed in the premises against visitors by anyone without proof that the owner was negligent in that he forsaw or ought to forsee the possibility or likelihood of such occuring and took no steps to prevent same. It is that forseeability that needs to be proved and I doubt if anyone can easily prove that a bank management knew or forsaw their bank being robbed and failed, refused and neglected to prevent same. So in the absence of this any customer who hasn't paid in his cash suffers his loss like the customer who has just been paid by the bank. The lucky customer is the one who has completed his transaction(by this I mean has paid in and received acknowledgement), otherwise giving the money to cashier is not conclusive of any transaction until the cashier issues the acknowledgment.

You want to profit or be protected from a situation the organization have little or no control over.

If you sue the bank for money stolen on their premises that has not been deposited yet, then, customers can also sue eatery, restaurants, filling stations and similar businesses for loses or valuables due to robbery on their premises.

Or do you think only banks get robbed?

millerojong: ......dats d position of d law as regards banking law...to support it,see d case of, foley v hill and joachinson v swiss bank corp......sorry,cnt give citations,my books are still in calabar....bt dose cases establishes d fact once u deposit ur mony,its no longer ur mony bt d bank's own...it is wen u make demand for ur cash and d bank refuses,nw den u can sue....bt once ur still with ur mony in d banking hall,its still ur mony,no liability on d bank incase of a break out....*ex ni hillo ni hil fit**(u can place nofin on smtin nd xpct it to stand)

Thanks for your post. That is like viewing the issue from another perspective. Me think BY Silver has a point. The decision you sited appears to me as a foreign authority. You will agree with me that a foreign authority most especially foreign decisions are not binding on our courts only of persuasiveness. It seems to me that there is no Statute envisaging this scenario in Nigeria and there appears to me "not to be any judicial precedent". Anyway, we are all saying the same thing.


If my position above is somewhat true, then the likely event that the bank would be held liable is 0.00000%.

I am thinking right now, (although tough), that should the claimant be able to establish balance of preponderance in his favour, it seems to me that he can recover damages from NDIC (and not from the bank) which usually insure bank and its buildings in Nigeria. My thoughts.

Many thanks.

nigerianescorts: Jamb question

That's why you people never learn. If na wizkid or Iyana story now, you go talk

AMH

Elbizzcklinz: from banking act... even if u are inside d bank and d cashier hasn't received d money signed and stamped.... d bank is not liable... also when d cash is being received by the cashier and in d process of counting,.without signing and stamping and robbers attacked... d bank is not liable. The condition Where d bank is liable is when the duty of a cashier has being discharged meaning when the money has being received, signed and stamped.... d bank is liable for damages. In ur case d bank is nt liable.

Very correct, that is the reason, cashiers always count money then arrange and drop it first before they will manage to stamp and sign your deposit slip. and when you also go to withdraw, they first make sure they stamp and sign on your withdrawal booklet and keep pressing what i don't know on thier keyboard before they will release your money, the reason is, at the time they stamp and sign your withdrawal booklet should anything happen the bank will assume that you already made the withdrawal. those banks are thieves.

The bank is not in anyway liable for monies within your custody.

In case of deposit: until the bank has stamped your teller as collected and record such against your account, the cash and teller with you merely indicates an 'intention to deposit' (which can change by mere wish or inconsistency), there is no claim to make. The bank's insurance can only indemnify such robbed funds based on records and not mere words of mouth.

In case of withdrawal: immediately you tender such teller and its stamped paid, the bank isn't liable of claims thereof again. Funds on your account with the bank is what the bank is liable of and not the cash/other properties on you at their premises (Except otherwise stated).

However, with a good lawyer and a poor judge, you can still have your way!!!

I think losing some money nobody knows about to the robbers at such event, is a great co-incident. It's a kind of ill-luck that follows man. I don't know if you could pick anything from this illustration: some killers were aiming to shoot at a man in the public, accidentally the bullet hits a guy whose friend was standing next to. Then the killers took off and fortunately for the original aim, he was left untouched. Would the victim friend attack the original cause of such evil occurrence? Well some would and that is why banks had to state clearly that cars are packed at owners risk. this is just my perspective.

Make a research on the word "BAILMENT" so you can have a better understanding on the laws guiding such circumstances.
THanks

No, u don't have any legal right to sue them

A bank is only liable for monies deposited wit it, in which proper documentation has taken place. Even if you've place ur money on the counter, nd it is been counted, as long as ur teller hasnt been stamped, the bank has a good case in court.

A customer in one of the eastern branches of Afribank sued and got judgment in his favor.
I do not have the exact details but i got to know that the robbery occurred many years ago in the late 1990's.
The customer claimed that he was already in the banking hall when the robbers struck.
The bank refused to abide by the judgment as at 2003 and the court tried to enforce it by seizing the branch's vehicles.
I was in the branch premises in 2003when court officials and police came to seize the vehicles and that was how i heard the story.
As i said, i have not seen any documents confirming the incident so i am not really sure whether it is true.