"The Appellant's entitlement to interest, whether for the loan facility granted or pre-dating any judgment given in the event of a default, must be strictly proved by evidence. This is a well-established principle of law. In Diamond Bank Ltd v. Partnership Investment Co. Ltd (2009) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1172) 67, (2009) LPELR-939(SC), the Supreme Court, per Ogbuagu, JSC said: "... the general rule at Common Law, is that interest is not payable on a debt or loan in the absence of express agreement or some course of dealing or custom to that effect. See London Chattam and Dover Railway v. South Eastern (1893) A.C. 249.

Thus, interest will however, be payable where there is an express agreement to that effect and such agreement may be inferred from a course of dealing between the parties. See ReDuncan and Co. (1905) 1 Ch. 307 or where an obligation to pay interest arises from the common or usage of a particular trade or business and I add like in banking." A.G. Ferrero & Company Ltd v. Henkel Chemicals Nigeria Ltd (2011) LPELR-12(SC); Edosa v. First Bank of Nigeria Plc (2011) LPELR-8785(CA); Olam (Nigeria) Ltd v. Intercontinental Bank Ltd (2009) LPELR-8275(CA); International Trust Bank Plc v. Kautal Hairu Co. Ltd (2005) 3 NWLR (Pt. 968) 443; In-Time Connection Ltd v. Ichie (2009) LPELR-8772(CA).

In Midas Bank Plc v. Commerce Progetti (Nigeria) Ltd (2009) LPELR-8263(CA) this Court, per Garba, JCA restated the general legal principles on the claims and award of pre-judgment interests in civil matters as follows: "The law is that prejudgment interest on a debt or loan can only be awarded where there is sufficient evidence of an agreement between the parties that such interest would be paid. The agreement should contain details such as (a) Rate of interest (b) Date of commencement (c) Date due; whether weekly, monthly, yearly or other specified period. However even where such an agreement was not entered into expressly by the parties, its existence would be readily implied where the plaintiff or judgment creditor is a bank or lending institution because of the custom in that trade or under the principle of equity, EKPEYONG v. NYONG (1975) SC 71, BARCLAYS BANK v. ABUBAKAR (1977) 10 SC 13, HIMMA MARCHANTS v. ALIYU (1994) 5 NWLR (Pt. 347) 667, VEE PEE IND. LTD v. COCOA IND. LTD (2008) 13 NWLR (1105) 486 @ 513.

In line with these authorities therefore, prejudgment interest can only be awarded in the following circumstances to be established by evidence: (a) Express agreement of the parties or (b) Existence of mercantile or trade custom, or (c) Under a principle of equity such as a breach of fiduciary relationship. In particular, where there is sufficient and credible evidence of an agreement of the parties, containing all the essential details of the interest payable on the debt or loan, a Court would have no option than to give effect to such agreement. This is based on the principles that parties are bound by the terms and conditions of an agreement freely entered between themselves and the duty of the Court to give effect to that agreement."

Per OTISI, J.C.A. IN FBN v. DAVIES CITATION: (2017) LPELR-43556(CA)