Corte fines Zenith Bank N85m for freezing the customer’s account …

A high court in Abuja assigned a fine of N85 million against Zenith Bank Plc for freezing a customer’s bank account based on an un valid order of the court.

Sowore wounded, he moved to the underground cell – the lawyer plays the alarm

The judge on Bature, in a sentence, also ordered the bank to immediately unlock the account domiciled in its 63 branch, Usuma Street, Maitama, in front of Transcorp Hilton Hotel, Abuja.

Justice Bature ordered the bank to publish public apologies to the customer, Abhulimenimo & Co, in two national newspapers and on his website.

The judge believed that the bank acted on a non -valid order issued by a court of the magistrate without the jurisdiction requested.

Justice Bature also declared that the decision of the bank and Nigeria Police Force (NPF), the 2nd accused in the case, to freeze the customer’s account, on the basis of an alleged order of the magistrate Court, without notifying the said customer, was illogical and a betrayal of the relationships between the parties of the banker.

The judge said that it was a pity that an important financial institution such as Zenith Bank, with a legal department, presumably manned by the lawyers, would have claimed to have acted on the basis of an un valid order by a court of the magistrate who was missing from jurisdiction to entertain any bank case, including the issue of orders for the freezing of a bank account.

The sentence was issued on July 16, but its certified copy copy (CTC) made available to journalists on Thursday in Abuja.

Paulyn O. Abhulimen, San, commercial under the name and style of Abhulimenimo & Co, had, in the marked cause: FCT/HC/CV/2194/2024, had sued the Zenith Bank and NPF as 1st and 2nd defendants.

Abhulimen sued through the Law & Partners LP Law Firm, claiming that, at the beginning of 2024, after being able to access the account of his company, Abhulimenimo & Co, and carried out transactions with it, discovered that the bank has placed a post-debt (PND) on it.

He claimed to have subsequently contacted an official of the bank, who is responsible for the account, Obaffor.

He said that Okafor told them about the development, following which the bank, on March 13, 2024, said he frozen the account based on an order obtained from the NPF from a court of the main magistrates to Mararaba Gurku, in the state of Nasarawa.

Dyspando the judgment, Justice Bature said: “The aforementioned account was opened to the first accused transforp Hilton branch (Zenith Bank), here in Abuja, and the 2nd accused (NPF) is also domiciled in Abuja.

“The logic behind the search for the aforementioned order at a court of the magistrate under the jurisdiction of the state of Nasarawa cannot be understood and the 2nd defendant did not appear, to be able to provide any explanation or reason why they decided to follow this line of action.

“The aforementioned court of the magistrate was lacking in territorial jurisdiction to entertain the application.
“Regarding the substantive Jurisdiction of the Court to make the Order, it is clear from the provisions of section 251 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (1999 As Amenteded), that Matters Relating To Banks and Banking Transactions Are Within The Exclusive Jurisdiction of the Federal High Court, and Matters Relating to Banker-Customer Disputes Are Jointly Under The Jurisdiction of the Federal High Court, State High Courts and High Court of the FCT, “said Justice Bature.

According to the judge, from the foregoing, it is clear that the magistrate courts do not have the jurisdiction to entertain a question for an order to freeze a person’s bank account and should not have entertained the aforementioned question in his entirety.

“The legal department of the first defendant (Zenith Bank), being lawyers, should have been aware of this position of the law and undertake the appropriate actions in this situation, since they should not have obeyed the Court’s order in the first place.

“Therefore, the 1st defendant was wrong that he had put a PND on the account of the applicant based on the order of a court without the jurisdiction necessary to do it. I keep like this,” said the judge.

The judge criticized the bank’s inability to inform the applicant about his decision to freeze the account of his company, describing him as a violation of the duty of diligence he owed to his customers.

Justice Bature said: “It is the humble opinion of this honorable Court that the first accused had to the applicant the duty of diligence that he had duly informed that his report had been frozen.

“The 1st defendant placed a post-deployed on the applicant’s report, but the same was not communicated to the applicant until he encountered difficulties in the use of this account.

“It is the humble opinion of this honorable Court who, the 1st defendant had to the applicant a duty of diligence that he had duly informed that his report had been frozen.

“The inability of the 1st defendant to inform the applicant of the state of affairs on his account is equivalent to negligence by the 1st defendant and, therefore, a violation of the duty of diligence and due diligence due to the applicant. I consider it so,” said Judge Bature.

Having discovered that the bank and the NPF have acted illegally, the judge proceeded to declare among others, that an order to freeze a bank account cannot be validly granted to the former to last indefinitely.

He also stated that the main court of the magistrate of the state of Nasarawa, sitting in Mararaba Gurku, did not have the jurisdiction necessary to issue an order to freeze the account number of the applicant Zenith Bank Plc: 1012272348, based on an ex-part question.

“The defendants are ordered to pay the sum of N60 million jointly and seriously to the applicant as general damage for embarrassment, psychological trauma, financial discomfort, emotional stress and serious inconveniences suffered by the applicant due to the actions of the defendants.

“The defendants are ordered to pay the sum of N25 million jointly and seriously to the applicant as the cost of this action,” said the judge Bure.

Related