For more than three years, a United Bank for Africa, UBA, customer, Akpasi Oziegbe, had sleepless nights after the commercial bank unlawfully and unilaterally moved over $160 million from his company’s account.
According to the News Agency of Nigeria, NAN, what started on July 20, 2022 as a joke to the customer took well over 40 months to resolve. What he experienced within the period has left him shattered and traumatised, according to those close to him who spoke with the magazine.
But on Wednesday, a federal high court in Abuja restored his peace that was shattered by the bank as it ordered the Oliver Aluwaba -led lender to return the money to him, with a whopping damages attached to it as compensation for what he went through.
The magazine reports that the customer had dragged the commercial bank to court after all botched attempts to get his money returned to him.
Ruling on the case yesterday, Justice Peter Lifu thoroughly scolded the bank for freezing and moving the money from the customer’s account without a valid court order, saying his rights has been thoroughly violated by the bank.
For UBA’s unlawful act, the judge also ordered the bank to pay the customer N30 million as damages, adding that what the bank did is capable of eroding customers’ confidence in the bank
Judge Lifu noted 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.
According to a certified true copy of the judgment delivered on July 25, 2025 and made available to journalists in Abuja, the nation’s capital yesterday, Justice Lify described what the commercial bank did as ultra vires, act that should not be condoned in any decent society.
How It All Began
Oziegbe, trading under the name and style of Micoz Bluelink Enterprise, had, in the suit marked FHC/ABJ/CS/1412/2023, sued UBA as the sole defendant.
The plaintiff’s legal team, Chikaosolu Ojukwu, and Adeyemo Richard, 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 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 August 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 $163.8 million but claimed the funds were flagged as suspicious.
The bank said it filed a suspicious transaction report with the Nigerian Financial Intelligence Unit and temporarily restricted the account pending enhanced customer due diligence.
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 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 customer’s 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.
Justice Lifu declared UBA’s actions “illegal, unconstitutional and a breach of banker-customer relationship”.
Discover more from The Source
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
