Justice Ayounle Faji of a Federal High Court, has awarded a monumental damages of N10 million, against Access Bank Plc, for illegal and unlawful freezing of account of one of it’s customers.
Justice Faji also described Access Bank Plc’s action of placing Post No Debit on the applicant’s account, as illegal, unconstitutional and void, as same is tantamount to the violation of the applicant’s right to access to her funds.
Other orders made by Justice Faji against Access Bank Plc in a suit marked FHC/L/CS/2461/2023, includes: “a declaration that the placement of the Post No Debit (PND) on the account with account number: 0095550540 held by the applicant with the respondent without a valid or subsisting order of Court to that effect is tantamount to a violation of the applicant’s right to enjoyment of the applicant’s 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 had 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.
“A declaration that the respondent cannot act on the instruction of any third party, either an institution, organization, or parastatal to place a Post No Debit order on the applicant’s accounts without a valid Court order being first sought and obtained in that regard.
“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 1 above) has resulted in tremendous loss of business image and integrity which has seriously affected the Applicant’s economic power and finances.
“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.”
Justice Faji made above orders and declarations while delivering judgment in a fundamental rights enforcement, filed by Barrister Oladotun Ajulo who led A. V. Ekundayo, on behalf of his client, Adenike Akinlade, whose account was freezed by Access Bank Plc without any valid court order.
Barrister Ajulo on behalf of client, had told the court that the suit is pursuant to Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules, 2009 made by the Chief Justice of Nigeria, to Section 46 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (As Amended).
In the suit, the applicant, Adenike Akinlade in her originating motion had asked the court for the following eight reliefs which were: I. “A declaration that the placement of the Post No Debit (PND) on the account with account number: 0095550540 held by the applicant with the respondent without a valid or subsisting order of Court to that effect is tantamount to a violation of the applicant’s right to enjoyment of the applicant’s 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.
ii. “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 had 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.
iii. “A declaration that the respondent cannot act on the instruction of any third party, either an institution, organization, or parastatal to place a Post No Debit order on the applicant’s accounts without a valid Court order being first sought and obtained in that regard.
iv. “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 1 above) has resulted in tremendous loss of business image and integrity which has seriously affected the Applicant’s economic power and finances.
v. “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
Vi. An Order of perpetual injunction restraining the Respondent, 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 hold with the Respondent without a valid order of Court being sought and obtained.
vii. General damages in the sum of N30,000,000 (Thirty Million Naira only).
viii. The cost of this action.”
The applicant supported the motion with 10 grounds and 19 paragraphs affidavit, with several documentary exhibits.
The applicant through her lawyer, formulated an issue for determination of the suit in her favour.
The issue raised was “In view of the totality of the circumstances of this application, particularly the depositions contained in the affidavit in support, whether the Post No Debit (PND) on the account of the Applicant constitutes a breach of the Applicant’s fundamental right to property?”
However, Access Bank Plc through it’s lawyers, A. O. Okeke and I. A. Akinteye, in response to the suit, filed a 25 paragraph counter-affidavit with exhibits attached and a Written Address on 15/2/2024 in response to the application.
The bank also formulated a sole issue for determination in it’s favour, which was: “in view of the totality of the circumstances of this application, particularly the depositions contained in the affidavit in support, whether the Post No Debit on the account of the Applicant constitutes a breach of the Applicant’s fundamental right to property?”
Access Bank through it’s lawyers stated that the applicant’s submissions in paragraphs 4.3 — 4.8 do not reflect the complete position of the law because 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 recognized by law. In this instance, the Respondent will not be held liable.
In deciding the suit, Justice Faji after perused through all the submissions, documentary exhibits tendered and plethoras of authorites held that: “The case for the respondent is that the place no debit was sequel to a letter obtained from Interpol to which was attached a court order. The letter is dated 25th July, 2022 and the attached order was made on 4th 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 4th August, 2022. There is no other order before the Court. Even though respondent stated that the place no debit was lifted after Interpol directed respondent to do so, there is no evidence of such a communication before the Court. At best therefore, the place no debit based on the said order ceased to have force from 4th August, 2022.
“It has been contended that the place 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 contents of paragraph 20 of the counter-affidavit therefore have 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 applicant access to her account.
“I therefore believe the applicant and must find that after 4th August, 2022, the respondent held on to applicant’s account and denied her access to same in breach of her rights under section 44 of the constitution (as amended).
“The said restriction was without justification. There was no subsisting order as at 4th august, 2022 and that is not allowed. See: DIAMOND BANK vy un AKA also GTB v ADEDAMOLA (Supra) (Supra). See
“This application therefore succeeds. I grant reliefs 1-5 as prayed.
“On damages, I find that the applicant has been denied access to her account since 4th August, 2022 till date. Damages therefore lie. The period of denial is a period of 29 months. Since then applicant has been put to a lot of inconvenience and 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 Naira in favour of the applicant.”
