A Federal High Court sitting in Abuja has summoned the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) and the Nigeria Deposit Insurance Corporation (NDIC) to appear and show cause why they should not be restrained from taking further steps following the recent revocation of the operating licences of Aso Savings and Loans Plc and Union Homes Savings and Loans Plc.
Justice Emeka Nwite issued the order on Tuesday while delivering a ruling on an ex parte motion filed by the affected mortgage institutions and two of their shareholders. The application was argued by their counsel, Joseph Silas.
While the court declined to grant an interim order restraining the CBN and NDIC from acting on the licence revocation, Justice Nwite held that the interest of justice would be better served by putting the regulators on notice.
“I have listened to the submission of counsel for the plaintiffs/applicants and carefully gone through the affidavit evidence, exhibits, and written address,” the judge said. “I am of the opinion, and I so hold, that the interest of justice will be met by putting the defendants on notice.”
He subsequently ordered the CBN and NDIC to appear before the court to explain why the reliefs sought by the plaintiffs should not be granted. The matter was adjourned to January 5 for the respondents to show cause.
In the suit, the plaintiffs—Aso Savings and Loans Plc, Union Homes Savings and Loans Plc, and two shareholders, Ridhwan Hamza and Ismaila Adamu—are seeking orders restraining the CBN and NDIC from taking any further steps to enforce the revocation of their operating licences, pending the determination of the motion on notice.
They also asked the court to bar the regulators from enforcing what they described as an unlawful decision against the mortgage institutions.
While moving the motion, Silas argued that the CBN failed to comply with conditions precedent required before exercising its powers to revoke the licences of the two institutions. He further alleged that the NDIC moved prematurely to take over the mortgage banks without allowing them to exhaust their legal rights to challenge the revocation.
According to him, unless restrained, the actions of the regulators would impose irreversible consequences on the plaintiffs.
In a supporting affidavit, Hamza, a shareholder in Aso Savings, admitted that the institutions faced operational challenges but maintained that these were known to the CBN. He claimed that the apex bank had issued an ultimatum to Aso Savings to meet its minimum capital requirement by August 31, 2025, through share reconstruction and recapitalisation efforts.
Hamza stated that despite what he described as positive progress updates communicated to the CBN on December 16, 2025, the apex bank proceeded to revoke the licences, relying on provisions of the Banks and Other Financial Institutions Act (BOFIA) 2020 and its revised guidelines for mortgage banks.
He said the CBN based its decision on the institutions’ failure to meet minimum paid-up share capital requirements, insufficient assets to cover liabilities, poor capital adequacy ratios, and alleged non-compliance with regulatory directives.
However, the deponent insisted that the CBN was fully aware of the steps taken by Aso Savings to address its capital shortfall and that the revocation was arbitrary, unreasonable, and not in the public interest.
He further accused the NDIC of attempting to undermine the plaintiffs’ statutory right to challenge the licence revocation by allegedly commencing liquidation processes, including sending messages to customers to file claims, even though the law allows a 30-day window to contest such regulatory actions.
The plaintiffs argue that the actions of the CBN and NDIC violate their constitutional right to fair hearing and undermine public policy objectives such as economic development, job creation, and investment promotion.
Comments