"The law certainly is that the "ipsedixit" of a witness can hardly be sufficient proof of payment made to a bank, where the fact of the payment or sum paid is in issue.See in this regard, the case of ISHOLA V. SOCIETE GENERALE BANK (NIG) LTD (1997) LPELR - 1547 (SC) where the Supreme Court per Iguh, JSC; said thus:

"Having alleged the said payment of N60,000.00 or N64,000.00 plus to the respondent bank, the onus was squarely on the appellant to establish this very material fact by admissible and credible evidence. Payment of money into an account may be proved either by the oral evidence of the person who actually made the payment personally to the bank or by the production of a bank teller or acknowledgement showing on the face of it that the bank had received the payment.

This is because a bank teller, duly stamped with the official stamp of the bank and properly initialled by the cashier, constitutes prima facie proof of payment of the sum of money therein indicated and a customer after producing such a receipt needs not prove more unless the payment is being seriously challenged. See Aeroflot v. U.B.A. (1986) 3 NWLR (Pt.27) 188 at 190." See also the case of SALEH V. BANK OF THE NORTH LTD (2006) LPELR - 2991(SC) where the Supreme Court per Musdapher, JSC; (as he then was) said thus:

"The best way of proving payment of money into a bank account is by production of bank teller or an acknowledgment showing on the face of it that the bank has received the payment. A bank teller duly stamped with the official stamp of the bank and properly initialled by the cashier, constitute prima facie proof of payment of the sum therein indicated and a customer, after producing such a teller or receipts needs not prove more unless payment is being challenged, see Ishola v. S.G.B. (Nig.) supra and Aeroflot v. U.S.A. (1986) 3 NWLR (Pt. 27) 188."

Per LOKULO-SODIPE, J.C.A. IN METROPOLITAN ESTATES v. UNION BANK CITATION: (2018) LPELR-43989(CA)