Court slams N30m fines on UBA Plc over unlawful, ‘reckless’ account restriction

*Justice Peter Lifu of the Federal High Court, Abuja Division, rules the United Bank for Africa (UBA) Plc had no legal basis for freezing Micoz Bluelink Enterprise’s business domiciliary account, or transferring funds from the account without a court order or notifying the customer

Alexander Davis | ConsumerConnect

Justice Peter Lifu of the Federal High Court, Abuja Division, has ordered United Bank for Africa (UBA) Plc to pay N30 million in damages for unlawfully restricting a firm’s account for over a year.

ConsumerConnect reports the court, in a judgment, also ordered UBA Plc to immediately refund $163,592 wrongfully withheld from Micoz Bluelink Enterprise.

The certified true copy of the judgment, which was delivered July 25, 2025, was made available to reporters Wednesday, August 13, in Abuja.

Justice Lifu ruled that that the commercial 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”.

The court further held that UBA’s action was “ultra vires”, reckless and bereft of mercy to the affected customer.

Akpasi Oziegbe, the plaintiff, trading under the business name of Micoz Bluelink Enterprise, in the suit marked FHC/ABJ/CS/1412/2023, had sued UBA as the sole defendant.

Chikaosolu Ojukwu, and Adeyemo Richard, the plaintiff’s legal team, also explained that the firm was incorporated on March 19, 2021, with a domiciliary account opened thereafter for trading operations.

The company, however, July 20, 2022, discovered that UBA had restricted the account with a balance of $163.8m meant for supply contracts.

Counsel Ojukwu, during the proceedings, reportedly said: “The applicant made several enquiries to the bank seeking reasons for the account restriction, but the bank failed to respond or unfreeze the account.”

Richard, another counsel, argued during one of the sittings, also alleged that the bank transferred the sum without the company’s authorisation August 19, 2023.

The plaintiff, in the affidavit in support, averred: “There is no mention of fraud in the call-back request presented by the bank, and the document lacks proper endorsement and authenticity.”

Why UBA flagged account as suspicious: Counsel

UBA Plc, in its defence, through its counsel, admitted the inflow of $163.8 million, but claimed that the said funds were flagged as suspicious at the time.

The commercial bank also said it filed a suspicious transaction report with the Nigerian Financial Intelligence Unit (NFIU), and temporarily restricted the account pending enhanced customer due diligence.

UBA equally contended 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.

Justice Lifu, in the judgment, nonetheless, held that UBA Plc breached its fiduciary duty and acted without court approval on the account restriction.

The Judge further ruled: “The bank failed to inform the applicant of reasons for the restriction and proceeded with unilateral withdrawal, thereby breaching the banker-customer contract.”

Besides, regarding the validity of the bank’s evidence, the Judge found UBA’s Exhibit ‘A’ defective.

Justice Lifu stated: “There is no mention of ‘fraud’ or ‘fraudulent’ in the document, which only states ‘Possible Duplicate’ and does not justify a call back.”

The Judge as well recognised the significant economic loss and business disruption caused to the applicant following the over-one-year restriction.

How court awarded N30m in damages against UBA

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.

He, therefore, declared UBA’s actions “illegal, unconstitutional and a breach of banker-customer relationship”.

The Judge cited the bank’s conduct, the applicant’s status and economic factors in awarding damages.

These, he said, included “the continual depreciation of the Naira”.

Justice Lifu, thereafter, awarded N30 million in damages in favour of Micoz Bluelink Enterprise with “post-judgment interest of 10 percent until the judgement sum is fully liquidated.”

The Judge also ordered the reversal of the $163,592 withdrawal.

Kindly Share This Story