Title in the cash would be said to have passed to the bank when the cashier or anybody receiving the money on the bank’s behalf must have counted the money, and the banking slip has been issued, or the teller has been stamped received by the cashier, then title in the cash would be said to have been passed, SEE BALMORAL SUPERMARKET V. BANK OF NEWZEALAND (1974) 2 LLOYD’S REP 164
No, it is not true that a teller must contain the signature of the cashier issuing it for it to become proof of actual deposit. Once a teller is stamped received, it is a documentary proof that indeed deposit has been made and received by the bank, it is the duty of the bank to prove otherwise. AFROFLOT SOVIET AIRLINES V. UBA (1986) I NSCC 698
Yes, except if the bank can prove that the pay-in-slip or the stamp on the teller issued you were not authentic, it becomes immaterial that the official of the bank is not a cashier, manager or any other person authorised to receive cash from the public. See KANU V. QUEEN (1960) SCNLR 599; AEROFLOT SOVIET AIRLINES V. UBA (1986) INSCC 698; SALAWU V. UNION BANK OF NIGERIA (1986)4 NWLR (38) 701
It depends on whether the said official has the authority of the bank to receive deposit on its behalf. Generally, the bank will not be liable for money paid to its official as deposit sum where such official is neither the manager nor the cashier. Payment of money to an official of the bank not being the cashier or the manager only creates an agency relationship between the customer and the bank official with a view that the bank official will deposit the money to the bank through the proper channel on the customer’s behalf. See SALAWU V. UNION BANK OF NIGERIA (1986) 4 NWLR (PT 88)701
No, the bank will not be liable on the ground that title in the cash has passed. As stated earlier, title in the cash will only pass when a slip has been issued to you indicating the deposited sum has been received or when your teller has been stamped received. However, the bank has a duty of care to ensure that its environment is well protected as such the bank may be held liable in tort for negligence. SEE BALMORAL SUPERMARKET V. BANK OF NEWZEALAND (1974) 2 LLOYD’S REP 164
The payment to a bank manager certain amount of money as deposit, is a payment to the bank itself as a bank manager is a principal officer and an agent of the bank, the subsequent embezzlement of the money made by the bank manager, makes the bank liable. AFRICAN CONT. BANK V. AGBANYIM (1960) NSCC 12