This is so because in England as in Nigeria the law has been well settled, that a master is jointly and severally liable for both the authorized act of and unauthorized mode of doing an act authorized by the servant. See Young v. Edward Box and Co (1951) 1 TLR 789, where it was held inter alia thus: A master is jointly and severally liable for any act committed by his servant while acting in the course of his employment. The wrongful act of a servant is deemed to be done in the course of his employment if it is either (1) a wrongful act authorized by the master or (2) a wrongful and authorized mode of doing same act authorized by the master The present Appellant’s case falls under the second category.” The Supreme Court in dealing with a similar situation in the case of ACB Ltd Calabar v. Agbonyin (1960) 1 NSCC @ P.12 had held inter alia thus: ”It was contended before us by Mr. Nonyelu, for the Appellant that assuming the money had been paid and that Mr. Onwuleaku had embezzled it, the Appellant would not be liable and he cited Barwick v. English Joint Stock Bank (1967) 2 Ex 259. With respect, it is difficult to see how that case helps him, since the Court there held that the bank would be liable for the fraud of its Manager, if in fact he had been fraudulent.” See also Vulcan Gases Ltd v. Gesellshaff Fir Industries G.A.G (GIV) (2001) 9 NWLR (Pt. 719) 610 SC.
— B.A. Georgewill JCA. Stanbic IBTC Bank Plc V. Longterm Global Capital Limited & Ors. (CA/L/427/2016, 9 Mar 2018)