The Court of Appeal, Abuja Division has affirmed the July 16, 2025 judgment by a HIgh Court of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) which imposed a fine of N85 million against Zenith Bank and the Nigeria Police Force (NPF) for relying on an invalid court order to freeze customer’s account.
A three-member panel of justices of the appellate court, led by Justice Adebukola Banjoko, held in a unanimous judgment on Monday, that the appeal filed by Zenith Bank was without merit and proceeded to dismiss it.
Zenith Bank had, by the appeal marked: CA/ABJ/CV/1335/2025 challenged the July 16, 2025 judgment by Justice S. U. Bature of the High Court of FCT, in which the bank was equally ordered to unfreeze the account domicile in its branch at 63 Usuma Street, Maitama, opposite Transcorp Hilton Hotel, Abuja and publish a public apology to the customer – Abhulimen & Co – in two nationa newspapers and its website.
The judgment by Justice Bature was on a suit marked: FCT/HC/CV/2194/2024 filed by Paulyn O. Abhulimen (SAN), with Zenith Bank and NPF listed as defendants.
Abhulimen had sued through the law firm of Akinlolu Kehinde SAN & Partners LP, claiming that, in early 2024, after being unable to access the account of her firm – Abhulimen & Co – and make transactions with it, she discovered that the bank placed a Post-no-debt (PND) on it.
The claimant stated that she subsequently contacted an official of the bank, who is in charge of the account – Obi Okafor – who told her about the development, following which the bank, in March 13, 2024 claimed to have frozen the account based on an order obtained by the NPF from a Chief Magistrate Court in Mararaba Gurku, Nasarawa State.
Justice Bature, in the judgment, held among others, that the bank’s decision to freeze the customer’s account, based on a supposed order by a Magistrate Court, without notifying the said customer, was illogical and a betrayal of the banker-customers relationship between parties.
The judge noted that it was unfortunate that a major financial institution like Zenith Bank, with a Legal Department, supposedly manned by lawyers, would claim to have acted based on an invalid order by a Magistrate Court that lacked the jurisdiction to entertain any banking related case, including issuing orders for the freezing of a bank account.
Justice Bature found that the bank acted on an invalid order made by a court that lacked the requisite jurisdiction and further held that,
“The said account was opened at the first defendant’s (Zenith Bank’s) Transcorp Hilton branch, here in Abuja, and the second defendant (NPF) is also domiciled in Abuja.
“The rationale behind seeking the said order at a Magistrate Court under the Nasarawa State jurisdiction cannot be understood, and the second defendant did not appear, to be able to give any explanation or reason as to why they decided to follow this line of action.
“The said Magistrate Court lacked the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the application.
“And, regarding the substantive jurisdiction of the court to make the order, it is clear from the provisions of Section 251 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (1999 as amended), that matters relating to banks and banking transactions are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal High Court, and matters relating to banker-customer disputes are jointly under the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court, State High Courts and High Court of the FCT,” he said.
Justice Bature added that, “From the foregoing, it is clear that Magistrate Courts lack the jurisdiction to entertain an application for an order to freeze a bank account of a person, and should not have entertained the said application in its entirety.
“The legal department of the first defendant (Zenith Bank), being lawyers, should have been aware of this position of the law and taken the appropriate action in this situation, as they ought not to have obeyed the court order in the first place.
“Thus, the first defendant was wrong to have placed a PND on the account of the claimant based on the order of a court lacking the requisite jurisdiction to do so. I so hold,” he held
The judge faulted the failure of the bank to inform the claimant about its decision to freeze her company’s account, describing it as a breach of the duty of care it owed to its customers adding that, “It is the humble opinion of this honourable court that, the first defendant owed the claimant a duty of care of duly informing her that her account had been frozen.
“The first defendant placed a post no debit on the account of the claimant’s firm, but same was not communicated to the claimant until she encountered difficulties in the use of the said account.
“It is the humble opinion of this honourable court that, the first defendant owed the claimant a duty of care of duly informing her that her account had been frozen
“The failure of the first defendant to inform the claimant of the state of affairs on her account amounts to negligence on the part of the first defendant and hence, a breach of duty of care and due diligence owed to the claimant. I so hold,” Justice Bature held.
Having found that the bank and the NPF acted unlawfully, the judge proceeded to declare among others, that an order to freeze a bank account cannot validly be granted ex-parte to last indefinitely.
He also declared that the Chief Magistrate Court of Nasarawa State, sitting at Mararaba Gurku, lacked the requisite jurisdiction to make an order to freeze the claimant’s Zenith Bank Plc’s account (Account Number: 1012272348) based on an ex-parte application.
The judge also declared that the act of freezing the claimant’s Zenith Bank Plc’s account (Account Number: 1012272348) without a valid order of a court of competent jurisdiction is a breach of the banker-customer relationship between the claimant and the first defendant.
He also declared that the bank’s failure to timely inform the claimant that her account had been frozen constitutes a breach of the duty of care the first defendant owes to the claimant.
Justice Bature ordered the bank to immediately vacate the Post No Debit (PND) order placed on the claimant’s account and “tender an unreserved apology to the claimant in writing in two National newspapers and on their websites for the grave inconveniences suffered by the claimant in this matter.
“The defendants are hereby ordered to jointly and severally pay the sum of N60million to the claimant as general damages for the embarrassment, psychological trauma, financial distress, emotional stress and grave inconveniences suffered by the claimant due to the defendants’ actions.
“The defendants are hereby ordered to jointly and severally pay the sum of N25 million to the claimant as cost of this action,” Justice Bature said.
Comments