Kemisola Oye
JUSTICE Ayounle Faji of a Federal High Court, sitting in Lagos, has awarded monumental damages of Ten Million Naira (N10,000,000.00) against Access Bank Plc for the illegal and unlawful freezing of the account of one of its customers.
The judge described Access Bank Plc’s action of placing ‘Post No Debit’ on the applicant’s account as illegal, unconstitutional and void, as the same is tantamount to the violation of the applicant’s right to access her funds.
Justice Faji in a suit marked FHC/L/CS/2461/2023, declared that placing PND on the claimant’s account without a valid or subsisting order of court is tantamount to a violation of her right to enjoyment of his property as entrenched in Section 44 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended) and Article 14 African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act LFN 2004.
“A declaration that the placement of the Post No Debit (PND) on the applicant’s account by the respondent (particulars of which are mentioned in relief above) without a valid order of court being first heard and obtained is illegal, unconstitutional and void as same is tantamount to the violation of the applicant’s right to access to the applicant’s funds.”
The court also declared that the respondent cannot act on the instruction of any third party, either an institution, organisation, or parastatal, to place a k order on the applicant’s accounts without a valid court order being first sought and obtained in that regard.
“An order of this honourable court directing the respondent to release forthwith the restriction it placed on the applicant’s bank account with number 0095550540 and account name Adenike Akinlade which the applicant holds with the respondent.”
The judge issued the order while delivering judgment in a fundamental rights enforcement suit filed by Oladotun Ajulo for Adenike Akinlade, whose account was frozen by Access Bank Plc without any valid court order.
Ajulo had told the court that the suit was pursuant to Fundamental Rights Enforcement Procedure Rules, 2009 and Section 46 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended).
The applicant, in her originating motion, had asked the court for the following eight reliefs among other orders directing the respondent to release forthwith the restriction it placed on the applicant’s bank account with number 0095550540 and account name Adenike Akinlade which the applicant holds with the respondent
She had also asked for an order of perpetual injunction restraining the bank and its agents, assigns, privies, or anyone howsoever described from interfering and/or denying the applicant the unfettered right to operate and access the account which the applicant holds with the respondent without a valid order of court being sought and obtained.
She also prayed the court to award general damages in the sum of N30,000,000 as the cost of this action.
The applicant supported the motion with 10 grounds and 19 paragraphs affidavit, with several documentary exhibits.
However, Access Bank Plc, through its lawyers, A. O. Okeke, in response to the suit, filed a 25-paragraph counter-affidavit with exhibits attached and a written address dated 15 February 2024 in response.
Access Bank stated that the applicant’s submissions on fundamental rights are not absolute, adding that the applicant’s fundamental right relating to monies in her bank account is not absolute since access can be denied in any of the deserving circumstances recognised by law. In this instance, the respondent will not be held liable.
Justice Faji, after perusing through all the submissions, documentary exhibits tendered and plethoras of authorities, held that: “The case for the respondent is that the decision to place no debit was sequel to a letter obtained from INTERPOL to which was attached a court order. The letter is dated 25 July 2022 and the attached order was made on 4 July 2022 made for 30 days.
“There is no other court process or order exhibited by the respondent. The order was thus to expire on 4 August 2022. There is no other order before the court. Even though the respondent stated that the ‘Post No Debit’ instruction was lifted after INTERPOL directed the respondent to do so, there is no evidence of such communication before the court. At best, therefore, the Post No Debit based on the said order ceased to have force from 4 August 2022.
“It has been contended that the Post No Debit was removed as soon as INTERPOL concluded its investigations, no date or period was stated for the suggestion. Furthermore, there is no written communication of this instruction from INTERPOL to the respondent. There is thus no evidence that the restriction was removed, when and whether or not it was communicated to the respondent.
“The content of paragraph 20 of the counter-affidavit, therefore, has no basis. The respondent contended that after the restriction was removed, the applicant could not operate her account because it was dormant.
“Applicant, however, stated that despite several efforts at operating her account, the respondent did not give her access to same. There is no written communication of the reasons for not granting the applicant access to her account.
“I, therefore, believe the applicant and must find that after 4 August 2022, the respondent held on to the applicant’s account and denied her access to same in breach of her rights under Section 44 of the Constitution (as amended).“
“The court holds that the application, therefore, succeeds. I grant reliefs one to five as prayed.
“On damages, I find that the applicant has been denied access to her account since 4 August 2022 till date. Damages, therefore, lie. The period of denial is a period of 29 months. Since then, the applicant has been put through a lot of inconveniences, deprivation, humiliation and want. I must, therefore, award such damages as would assuage the loss of the applicant.
“The court is entitled to consider the drastic reduction in the value of our national currency in recent times in assessing damages. I, therefore, hereby award damages of N10 million in favour of the applicant.”
Eighteen-Eleven Media