In a landmark judgment that could set a precedent for banking accountability in Nigeria, the Federal High Court in Abuja has ordered United Bank for Africa (UBA) to pay N30 million in damages and immediately refund $163,592 to Micoz Bluelink Enterprise, a firm whose domiciliary account was unlawfully restricted for over a year.Delivering judgment on July 25, 2024, Justice Peter Lifu condemned UBA’s actions as “ultra vires, reckless, and bereft of mercy,” declaring that the bank had no legal basis to freeze the account or transfer funds without a court order or prior notice to the customer.The ruling, which was made available to journalists on Wednesday in Abuja, marks a significant victory for corporate clients facing arbitrary account restrictions by financial institutions.### **”Breach of Trust”: Court Slams UBA**Justice Lifu held that UBA’s conduct constituted a “clear breach of the sacred banker-customer relationship,” emphasizing that banks cannot unilaterally seize or restrict customer funds without due process.“The bank failed to inform the applicant of the reasons for the restriction and proceeded with a unilateral withdrawal — an act that is not only illegal but unconstitutional,” the judge declared.The plaintiff, Akpasi Oziegbe, operating as Micoz Bluelink Enterprise, had filed suit FHC/ABJ/CS/1412/2023 against UBA, alleging that the bank restricted access to its domiciliary account on July 20, 2022, without justification. At the time of the freeze, the account held $163,800 — funds earmarked for international supply contracts.Despite repeated inquiries, the company received no official explanation from the bank for over 12 months.### **Unauthorised Transfer Sparks Legal Battle**Adding insult to injury, the court heard that on August 19, 2023, UBA allegedly transferred $163,592 from the account without the company’s authorization.Chikaosolu Ojukwu, lead counsel for Micoz Bluelink, argued that the bank provided no valid documentation to justify the action.“There is no mention of fraud in the so-called ‘call-back request’ presented by UBA. The document lacks proper endorsement and authenticity,” Ojukwu stated in court.Adeyemo Richard, co-counsel, further emphasized that the withdrawal occurred without any court directive or customer consent — a direct violation of banking ethics and contractual obligations.### **UBA’s Defence: “Suspicious Transactions” Claim Rejected**In its defence, UBA, represented by counsel Kalat Jatau, admitted receiving the $163,800 but claimed the transaction was flagged as suspicious. The bank said it filed a report with the Nigerian Financial Intelligence Unit (NFIU) and placed the account under temporary restriction pending “enhanced customer due diligence.”UBA also claimed it had informed the plaintiff and requested additional documentation, which it alleged was inconsistent with the transaction value. The bank further argued that the funds were recalled following a SWIFT instruction from its correspondent bank, Citibank.However, Justice Lifu dismissed these arguments, calling the bank’s evidence “deficient and unconvincing.”He specifically questioned the validity of UBA’s Exhibit ‘A’ — the purported suspicious transaction notice — noting that it only mentioned “Possible Duplicate” and contained no reference to fraud.“That single phrase does not justify freezing an account for over a year, let alone withdrawing funds,” the judge remarked.### **Court Awards N30m in Damages, Orders Full Refund**In his ruling, Justice Lifu underscored the severe economic hardship suffered by Micoz Bluelink Enterprise, including business disruption and financial losses exacerbated by the naira’s continued depreciation.“The applicant’s operations were crippled for over 12 months. There was no transparency, no communication, and no lawful basis for the bank’s actions,” he said.The court held that customer funds can only be withdrawn “pursuant to an unequivocal instruction by the customer or a court order” — neither of which UBA could produce.Accordingly, Justice Lifu:- Declared UBA’s actions **illegal, unconstitutional, and a breach of fiduciary duty**;- Ordered the **immediate reversal of $163,592** to Micoz Bluelink Enterprise;- Awarded **N30 million in general and aggravated damages**;- Mandated **10% post-judgment interest** on the awarded sum until full liquidation.### **Implications for Nigeria’s Banking Sector**Legal experts say the judgment sends a strong signal to financial institutions about the limits of their powers.“This ruling reinforces the principle that banks are not above the law,” said Dr. Ada Nwachukwu, a banking law scholar at the University of Lagos. “They must respect contractual obligations and due process, especially when dealing with corporate accounts.”For Micoz Bluelink Enterprise, the verdict brings long-awaited relief.“We are grateful for the justice system,” said a spokesperson for the firm. “This was never just about money — it was about accountability.”As for UBA, the bank has yet to issue an official statement on whether it plans to appeal the decision.For now, the message from the Abuja High Court is clear: **No account freeze without cause. No withdrawal without consent.***— Dr. Kayode Omolayo, Senior Correspondent, CoolNews.ng
Facebook Comments