"...Section 49(1) stipulates that notice of dishonour of the bill must be given within a reasonable time thereafter. Undoubtedly, time is of the utmost importance in relation to giving notice of dishonour. There is no hard and fast rule in this matter save that it is common ground that what constitutes a reasonable time is a question of fact dependent upon the circumstances of the case. A delay in giving notice extending for a period of nearly one year, without any satisfactory explanation, as earlier observed, cannot be but unreasonable; see Lombard Banking Ltd. v Central Garage and Engineering Co. Ltd (1963) 1 QB: 220. In other words, if the matter rested there I would have had no compunction to hold that the delay has discharged the respondent from further liability under the five cheques. Indeed, my conclusion in this regard will be supportable from the angle that the five cheques were accepted by the appellant bank on condition that when presented, they would be honoured. This, in effect, will tantamount to accepting the view of the law on bill of exchange, ably and lucidly enunciated in Chitty on Contracts, Vo1, 1, para.1 551, at p.982. Such inevitable consequence of dilatory treatment of a bill of exchange was endorsed by Willes, J. in Peacock v Purssell (1863) 32 LJCP 266 at 267: "The plaintiffs here (such as appellant herein) took the bill at first conditionally but having dealt with it in such a manner as to render it useless to the defendant, (as the respondent herein) they must now be considered as having taken it absolutely."

Per ACHIKE, J.S.C in BANK OF THE NORTH LTD v. YAU CITATION: (2001) LPELR-746(SC)