It rejected entirely second time treatment 1986 of Federal Bank of Lebanon s. a . l vs. Nikos K. Shacola as guarantor of the Greek company Hellas Eurotrade Ltd amounting to US $ 40,388,722.85 with costs against it.
In his final decision, the President of the Nicosia District Court stated:
“. The claim of the plaintiff is dismissed at the expense of the plaintiff and in favor of the defendant as will be calculated by the Registrar and approved by the Court.”
With the above paragraph, the well-known businessman Nikos K. Siakolas was acquitted for the second time on 26.1.2021 by the District Court of Nicosia in the lawsuit no. 747/1986 Federal Bank of Lebanon vs Nikos K. Siakolas, for events that took place in 1975 and 1976.
The court found for the second time 20 full years after the completion of the first trial that the claim of the Plaintiff Federal Bank of Lebanon SAL, (which was originally for an amount of approximately US $ 598,729 in account balance but with the claimant's claim for the compound interest payment from 1977 finally amounted to US $ 40,388,722.85), had not been proved since …… .the plaintiff debited the Hellas Eurotrade Ltd account with piles of illegal and unconventional interest and commissions and As a result, it is not able to substantiate its position that Hellas Eurotrade Ltd owes it the requested amount or any other amount under this account. Nor can it be investigated by the Court what the balance of the account would have been if these arbitrary charges had not been included in it. “
The court report on the two main witnesses in the case is indicative.
For the defendant Mr. Siakolas, the court stated “I was very impressed by the witness seat. Despite his apparent physical fatigue due to old age and exhausting examination that took several years to complete, as well as his inability to read, his memory proved to be very strong as he referred in detail to all the documents read to him and gave his version. on all matters relating to his dealings with the Government of Nigeria and the applicant. “
As for the main witness of the plaintiff Federal Bank of Lebanon SAL, the court did not hesitate to state the following: disputes, but also because on substantive issues …… … he does not have his own knowledge “, and further:” Regardless of my above finding that the testimony of M.E.1 did not help in resolving the disputed issues, I judge in its entirety his testimony, that M.E.1 did not tell the whole truth to the Court, regarding important disputed facts of the present. “
The court continued the evaluation of the testimony of the main witness of the plaintiff bank stating: “Or in addition to the above, M.E.1 (ie the main witness of the plaintiff bank) did not make a good impression on me from his seat witness. His answers were not immediate and he deliberately avoided answering questions that in his view did not advance the plaintiff's case “and the court concluded:” Summarizing the above, I consider that the testimony of M.E.1 not only did not help in resolving important disputes, but also contains important contradictions, crucial in judging its credibility. For all the above reasons, the testimony of M.E.1 is rejected in its entirety as unreliable. “
Mr. Nikos K. Siakolas was represented in court by Mr. Andreas Dimitriou and Ms. Nedi Koukouma of the law firm Ioannidis Dimitriou DEPE, supported by Mr. Pambos Ioannidis who, together with Mr. Andreas Dimitriou, had represented Mr. Nikos K. Siakolas at the first hearing of the lawsuit in 2000.