"What a claim of money had and received connotes has been enunciated in many cases. See the case of AEROFLOT SOVIET AIRLINES V. UBA LTD [1986] 1 NSCC 698 wherein the Supreme Court said thus: "The common law action for money had and received has always been used, wherever conversion lies, and money has been received on behalf of the plaintiff by the defendant, to compel the defendant to restore such money to its true owner.
Since the action for money had and received is alternative to conversion, the plaintiff is entitled to waive the wrong and sue for money had and received. As Lord Wright expressed it in Fibrosa Spolka Akeyna v. Fairbarn, Lawson Combe, Barbour Ltd. (1943) A.C. 32 at p.64, 'the common law still employs the action for money had and received as a practical and useful, if not complete or ideally perfect instrument to prevent unjust enrichment, aided by the various methods of technical equity which are also available, as they were found to be in Sinclair v. Brougham."
The action for money had and received, though for the purposes of pleading made alternative to an action for conversion, is an independent cause of action; and lies even where the action for conversion may be unavailable. - see Fibrosa Spolka Akeyna v. Fairbaim, Lawson, Combe Barbour Ltd. (1943) A.C. 32. There seems to be no doubt that a customer's claim to moneys received by a banker on his account would be for money had and received. Hence when the plaintiff, a customer of a bank, in an action for money had and received proves that the defendant banker has received on his account the money claimed, the plaintiff is undoubtedly in a position to receive such money. In an action for money had and received, the negligence of the defendant is not a necessary element of the liability.
The essential ingredients are that money due to the plaintiff has been paid to the defendant and who has been unjustly enriched by such payment. It is therefore unconscientious and contra aequieetbonun for the defendant to retain it as against the plaintiff. The Court of Appeal would seem to have been misled by the contention of the appellant before them and therefore accepted the submission that the learned trial judge decided the case before him and found respondent liable on the principle of negligence.
Nothing is further from the true legal position. I agree with the view of Mr. Popoola for the appellants that the use of the word "negligence" in the context can only connote carelessness. xxxx" See also the decision of this Court in the case of OZIMS V. ANORUO [1991] 3 NWLR (Pt. 181) 571 wherein Oguntade, JCA; (as he then was) dwelling on the legal basis of money had and received said thus: "An action for money had and received, simpliciter, is based on what is generally described as quasi-contract.
It is an equitable remedy for which the action lies for the recovery of money had and received under circumstances where any notion of an actual contract is excluded. It lies for money paid by mistake; or upon a failure of consideration, or for money got by imposition, express or implied; or extortion, or oppression; or an undue advantage taken of a person's situation, contrary to the laws made for the protection of persons under those circumstances - see Moses v. Macferlan (1760) 2 Burr 1(X) 5, 1012 per Lord Mansfield. When an action is based on money had and received, the relationship of the parties is not looked upon as contractual giving rise to an obligation to repay.
It is imposed by the Court under circumstances which it considers just and reasonable having regard to the relationship of the parties on equitable grounds. In other words, it is a debt or obligation to repay constituted by the act of the law, apart from any consent or intention of the parties or privity of contract. See Brooks Wharf & Bull Wharf Ltd. v. Goodman Brothers (1937) 1 K.B. 534. These principles were examined and applied by the Federal Supreme Court in Michael Foluwase Oduwobi & Ors v. Barclays Bank D.C.O. (1962) 1 S.C.N.L.R. 226 (1962) 1 All NLR 141 at 144-145."
Per LOKULOSODIPE, J.C.A. IN METROPOLITAN ESTATES v. UNION BANK CITATION: (2018) LPELR-43989(CA)
