Abou-Rahmah & Anor v Al-Haji Abdul Kadir Abacha & Ors [2006] EWCA Civ 1492 (08 November 2006)

Abou-Rahmah & Anor v Al-Haji Abdul Kadir Abacha & Ors [2006] EWCA Civ 1492 (08 November 2006)

The bank was not liable for dishonest assistance because it did not have the requisite knowledge or dishonesty regarding the specific transactions. The bank was entitled to the defence of change of position in the restitution claim because its suspicions did not relate to the transactions in question and it acted in good faith.

Citation
[2006] EWCA Civ 1492
Parties
Claimant/appellant: Adnan Shaaban Abou-Rahmah; Claimant/appellant: Khalid Al-Fulaij & Sons General Trading & Contracting Co; Defendant/respondent: Al-Haji Abdul Kadir Abacha; Defendant/respondent: Qumar Bello; Defendant/respondent: Aboubakar Mohammed Maiga; Defendant/respondent: City Express Bank of Lagos; Defendant/respondent: Profile Chemical Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
08 November 2006
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Knowing Assistance, Dishonest Assistance, Money Had and Received, Change of Position, Money Laundering, Breach of Trust
Equity Restitution Banking Law Fraud Knowing Assistance Dishonest Assistance Money Had and Received Change of Position +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Adnan Shaaban Abou-Rahmah

Claimant/appellant

Khalid Al-Fulaij & Sons General Trading & Contracting Co

Claimant/appellant

Al-Haji Abdul Kadir Abacha

Defendant/respondent

Qumar Bello

Defendant/respondent

Aboubakar Mohammed Maiga

Defendant/respondent

City Express Bank of Lagos

Defendant/respondent

Profile Chemical Limited

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the bank is liable for dishonest assistance in a breach of trust
  2. 2 Whether the bank is liable in restitution for money had and received
  3. 3 Whether the bank can rely on the defence of change of position

Ratio Decidendi

The bank was not liable for dishonest assistance because it did not have the requisite knowledge or dishonesty regarding the specific transactions. The bank was entitled to the defence of change of position in the restitution claim because its suspicions did not relate to the transactions in question and it acted in good faith.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed