According to the Certified True Copy (CTC) of the judgment of Justice Olubunmi Abike-Fadipe of the High Court of Lagos in a suit filed by Real Integrated and Hospitality Limited, the judge did not accuse Zenith Bank Plc of bribing judges and lawyers for 11 years to pervert justice, as falsely reported online last week.

Gombe State Universal Basic Education (SUBEB) is the second defendant in the suit.

Even though Justice Abike-Fadipe granted the claimant’s claims against the bank, checks by our reporter showed she did not accuse Zenith Bank of bribery, as claimed by the online medium.

There was also no mention of Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) governor, Godwin Emefiele, in the judgment.

A lawyer, who witnessed the hearing, said the judge never made the pronouncements attributed to her on bribery of judges.

“No judge will include such a pronouncement in his judgment. It is important for reporters, especially unprofessional bloggers, to fact-check and verifies information given to them by interested parties before publishing.

“The bank will be within its rights to seek redress for the defamatory publications in this stance were those behind such defamatory and wicked publications fail to offer an apology,” the lawyer, who preferred not to be mentioned, said.

The bank has filed a notice of appeal on the judgment, insisting that it is a neutral party in the transaction between the claimant and the second defendant.

The bank, in its defence before the High Court, stated that it issued two advance payment guarantees (APGs) for N872, 780,552.80 on behalf of the claimant on January 17, 2011.

The bank said it was part of the conditions that the amount would be received into the claimant’s account and it would place a lien on it until the claimant was discharged by the second defendant (SUBEB), who awarded a contract for the supply of dictionaries to the claimant.

The bank said it had only received N785, 502,507.44 from January 1 to June 30, 2011, into the claimant’s account.

It told the court that it was not a party to the agreement between the claimant and Gombe SUBEB for the supply of dictionaries and that the letter of credit transaction between the claimant and the bank was a distinct contract that did not impose any obligations on the bank with respect to the actual performance of the contract for the supply of the dictionaries.

The bank denied receiving or turning down any instructions from the claimant as the claimant’s account with the bank was active at all times with payment and withdrawals from the account.

It said the claimant had access to the funds in its account, which it had utilised, except for the amount deposited as cash collateral for the APGs.

The bank said its refusal to grant the claimant access to the collaterised fund was predicated on the fact that it did not receive authorisation from Gombe SUBEB to release the fund to the claimant as per the terms of the APGs.

It added that the second defendant had “called in” the APGs on the ground of non-performance by the claimant of the contract for the supply of dictionaries.

The bank said Gombe SUBEB had also informed the claimant of its termination of the contract based on non-performance of the contract for the supply of dictionaries.

“The first defendant could not carry out any instruction from the claimant to transfer the guaranteed sum over which the first defendant had a lien until the second defendant had written to the first defendant discharging it from liability,” it explained.

It was learnt that the judge was also annoyed with the quotes attributed to her that were not part of her judgment.

Some online publications had quoted the judge as the bank is fraudulent and warned people to be very careful in their dealings with it.

The judge, it was learnt has also denied some statements attributed to her.