A Federal High Court, Lagos has penalized Access Bank Plc for unlawfully freezing a customer’s account without a valid court order.
Justice Ayokunle Faji, who presided over the case, found the bank’s action illegal and awarded damages against both Access Bank and its co-respondent, the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC).
The customer, Ganiyu Olawale Toheeb, had sued Access Bank and the EFCC in suit number FHC/L/CS/333/2023, filed via an originating motion on May 18, 2023. He claimed that his bank account was unlawfully frozen from February 2 to March 8, 2023, based solely on the EFCC’s directive.
Toheeb posed several legal questions for the court’s determination, including: “Whether the EFCC Act authorizes a bank to freeze an account without a court order.
“Whether Access Bank acted unlawfully under the relevant provisions of the Central Bank of Nigeria Act and the Banks and Other Financial Institutions Act.
“Whether the bank was justified in freezing his naira and domiciliary accounts (Account Nos: 1456049856 and 1459254408).
“Whether the court has the authority to compel the bank to unfreeze the accounts.
He also sought the following reliefs: “A declaration affirming the court’s jurisdiction to interpret the relevant laws.
“A declaration that Access Bank acted unlawfully by freezing his accounts without a court order.
“An order directing the bank to unfreeze the affected accounts.
“Damages of N500,000 jointly and severally against Access Bank and the EFCC.
“A perpetual injunction restraining the bank from further freezing the accounts without lawful cause.
To support his claims, Toheeb filed a 15-paragraph affidavit with attached exhibits and a written address.
In response, Access Bank filed an 18-paragraph counter-affidavit with exhibits on December 22, 2023. Through its lawyer, the bank raised a single issue: whether it acted lawfully in restricting the plaintiff’s accounts based on EFCC’s instructions. The bank argued that it acted within the law and that the EFCC is empowered to investigate criminal activity.
The EFCC, for its part, filed a preliminary objection, challenging the court’s jurisdiction and urging that the case be struck out.
After reviewing the filings and authorities cited, Justice Faji dismissed the EFCC’s preliminary objection, ruling that it lacked merit. He resolved all issues in favour of the plaintiff.
The judge held “Questions 1 to 3 were answered in the negative; question 4 in the positive.
“Reliefs A to D and F were granted.
“The plaintiff was entitled to damages, as his funds were withheld for over a month before the EFCC obtained a proper court order”.
The judge found both defendants equally liable and awarded N300,000 in general damages against each of them.
