"The contention between the parties in this Appeal is whether the Respondents could rightly be referred to as "Money Lenders" under the scheme of things and particularly under Sections 2 and 3 of the Money Lender's Law of Anambra State.
In the case of IBRAHIM vs. BAKORI & ANOR (2009) LPELR- 8681 CA, this Court per OKORO, JCA (as he then was) had this to say on the subject: "Section 2 - in this law- Money Lender includes every person whose business is that of Money Lending or who carries on or advertises or announces himself or holds himself out in any way as carrying on that business, whether or not he also possesses or owns property or money derived from sources other than the lending of money and whether or not he carries on business as a principal or as an agent... 3.
Save as expected in paragraphs (a), (b), (c) (d) and (e) of the definition of Money Lender in Section 2 any person who lends money in consideration of a larger sum being repaid shall be presumed to be a money lender until the contrary is proved." The definition given by the law itself is clear and unambiguous. I do not intend to subtract or add to the wordings of Sections 2 and 3 of the Money Lenders Law in trying to say whether the 1st Respondent is a Money Lender or not except to state that the word 'business' as contained in Section 2 thereof means: 'A commercial enterprise carried on for profit; a particular occupation or employment habitually engaged in for livelihood or gain; See Black's Law Dictionary (8th Edition) at page 211.
It follows that any person who habitually engages in an enterprise of lending money as a means of livelihood, profit or gain or who advertises that he engages in that business or announces it or holds himself out to be so understood, is said to be a money lender under the law." Perhaps, to determine whether the Respondents are engaged in commercial enterprise even though they had dubbed their loan transaction to the Appellant as one granted as a "Friendly Loan", there may be the need to examine their paragraphs 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 12 of the Supporting Affidavit to their Originating Summons as follows; 4.
That Ofuobi Committee of Friends is a voluntary organization one of its aims is to assist its members or any member of the public by giving friendly loans on request to such a person; provided that the person has property with which to secure the repayment of the loan. 5. The Defendant requested and was granted a loan of N236,000.00 (Two- Hundred and Thirty-six Thousand Naira) by us, which loan was to be repaid on the 31st day of October, 2007. A copy of the loan agreement we executed is hereby annexed and marked as Exhibit A. 6. The Defendant, on taking the loan, gave out his market stall No. C6/14 at the main market Onitsha to us, as security for the payment of the loan. He handed over to us the original allocation paper of the stall. The said allocation paper is hereby annexed and marked as Exhibit B. 7.
On the 31st day of October, 2007, the Defendant did not repay the loan and since then up till this moment, he has not repaid the loan despite several demands we made (both orally and in writing) to him to do so... 8. That when we got tired of demanding for the repayment of the loan we advertised the stall for sale. 12. Those traders now say that they would buy the stall only if there is an order of Court backing the sale of the stall." It is important to note from the foregoing, that the relationship between the parties, which started all out on a "friendly" note when the Respondents granted the Appellant a "Friendly Loan", took a turn for the worse, when the same Respondents resorted to advertising the Appellant's stall for sale due to failure to liquidate the sums owed; a development, which this Court considers to be more consistent with the practice of a group who habitually engages in an enterprise of lending money as a means of livelihood, profit or gain.
A practical demonstration of this is seen at page 45 of the printed records, where the Appellant stated that the money he borrowed was N200,000.00 and that under the agreement between the parties he was to pay the sum of N236,000.00. That as far as this Court is concerned is not a development that is consistent with a friendly relationship in any way it is considered. By their own showing, therefore, the Respondents were able to inform the Court below that they advertised the Appellant's stall at the Onitsha main market for sale, but for how much, they chose to keep the Court in the dark. Furthermore, in their paragraphs 13 and 14 of their supporting affidavit the Respondents made further allusions as to additional losses sustained in respect of the transaction involving the Appellant when the Respondents resorted to hiring the services of Counsel in recovering the loan granted.
I therefore find myself unable to disagree with the Appellant when he maintained his resolved in stating that the Respondents are Money Lenders under Section 2 of the Money Lenders' Law of Anambra State. What this position portends in essence is that the learned trial Court erred in deciding that the Respondents are not a Money Lending outfit whose proceedings are caught by Section 30 of the Money Lenders' Law of Anambra State, which prescribes a Limitation period of twelve (12) months for the commencement of actions for the enforcement of any agreement involving a Money Lenders' transaction.
It would be recalled that the action involving the parties at the Court below was commenced on the 8-10-2009, whereas by the Respondents' Exhibit "A" attached to their Supporting Affidavit shows that the cause of action between the parties arose on the 31-10-2007, well outside the twelve (12) months limitation period under the Money Lenders Law of Anambra State."
Per OHO, J.C.A. IN NNAMDI v. NDULUE & ORS CITATION: (2017) LPELR-43593(CA)
