A Federal High Court sitting in Abuja has ordered United Bank for Africa PLC (UBA PLC) to pay N30 million in damages for unlawful restriction of a firm’s account for over a year.
In a judgement, the trial judge, Justice Peter Lifu, ordered the bank to immediately refund the sum of 163, 592 U. S. dollars wrongfully withheld from the company, Micoz Bluelink Enterprise.
Justice Lifu held that the bank had no legal basis for freezing the business domiciliary account or transferring funds from the account without a court order or notifying the customer.
The judge described the act as “a breach of the banker-customer’s relationship,” and declared that the action of UBA was ultra vires in its powers, reckless and bereft of mercy.
The certified true copy of the judgement, delivered on July 25, was made available to newsmen on Wednesday, August 13, 2025 in Abuja.
The plaintiff; Akpasi Oziegbe, trading under the name and style of Micoz Bluelink Enterprise, had, in the suit marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/1412/2023, sued UBA as sole defendant.
The plaintiff’s legal team, Chikaosolu Ojukwu, SAN, and Adeyemo Richard, had explained that the firm was incorporated on March 19, 2021, with a domiciliary account opened thereafter for trading operations.
On July 20, 2022, the company discovered that the account had been restricted by the bank with a balance of 163.8 million dollars meant for supply contracts.
“The applicant made several enquiries to the bank seeking reasons for the account restriction, but the bank failed to respond or unfreeze the account,” Ojukwu said.
Richard, equally, contended in one of the sittings that the bank allegedly transferred the sum without the company’s authorisation on Aug. 19, 2023.
The plaintiff, In the affidavit in support, averred that “there is no mention of fraud in the call-back request presented by the bank, and the document lacks proper endorsement and authenticity.”
In its defence, UBA, through its counsel, Kalat Jatau, admitted the inflow of N163.825 dollars but claimed the funds were flagged as suspicious.
The bank said it filed a Suspicious Transaction Report (STR) with the Nigerian Financial Intelligence Unit (NFIU) and temporarily restricted the account pending enhanced Customer Due Diligence (CDD).
The bank alleged that, “the applicant was informed of the restriction and requested further documentation, which upon review, was found to be inconsistent with actual transaction amounts.”
It further argued that the funds were recalled following a SWIFT instruction from its correspondent bank, Citi Bank.
Delivering the judgment, Justice Lifu held that UBA breached its fiduciary duty and acted without court approval.
“The bank failed to inform the applicant of reasons for the restriction and proceeded with unilateral withdrawal, thereby breaching the banker-customer contract,” he held.
On the validity of the bank’s evidence, the judge found UBA’s Exhibit ‘A’ defective.
“There is no mention of ‘fraud’ or ‘fraudulent’ in the document, which only states ‘Possible Duplicate,’ and does not justify a call back,” he said.
The judge also recognised the significant economic loss and business disruption caused to the applicant following the over one year restriction.
According to Justice Lifu, there is no proof the bank took appropriate steps before restricting the account or withdrawing funds, nor did it disclose where the money was transferred.
The judge held that bank customer funds could only be withdrawn from their account “pursuant to an unequivocal instruction by the customer or a court order,” and that neither of which was presented.
He declared UBA’s actions “illegal, unconstitutional and a breach of banker-customer relationship.”
The judge, therefore, cited the bank’s conduct, the applicant’s status and economic factors in awarding damages.
These, he said, include “the continual depreciation of the naira.”
Justice Lifu, thereafter, awarded a N30 million in damages in favour of Micoz Bluelink Enterprise with “post judgment interest of 10 per cent until the judgment sum is fully liquidated.”
The court also ordered the immediate reversal of the $163, 592 withdrawal.
