Asime’s Suit Over Frozen Account Declared Null — Court Of Appeal Rules Bank Deposits Enforceable Via Ordinary Writs, Not Fundamental Rights

The Court of Appeal, Abuja Division, has allowed the appeal by United Bank for Africa PLC (UBA) against Stephen Smart Asime, setting aside a July 2023 High Court judgment that awarded Asime N150 million in damages for alleged breaches of his constitutional rights to property and human dignity.
The three-judge panel, led by Justice Bouloukuromo Moses Ugo with concurring judgments from Justices Mohammed Ambi-Usi Danjuma and Usman Alhaji Musale, declared the High Court’s ruling a nullity, struck out Asime’s suit, and ordered each party to bear their own costs. The case, Appeal No. CA/ABJ/CV/892/2023, stemmed from UBA’s decision to impose a Post No Debit (PND) restriction on Asime’s account (No. 2019449725) in May 2022 amid suspicions of fraudulent activity.
Asime, a Nigerian pursuing further studies in the United Kingdom, filed an originating motion under the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules 2009, invoking Sections 34 (dignity of the human person) and 44 (right to own immovable property) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), as well as Article 14 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights.
In March 2022, Asime applied through UBA for a Personal Travel Allowance (PTA) via Central Bank of Nigeria Form A to pay approximately £9,565 in school fees to Sanctus Institute, Manchester, for a purported Master of Science in Management. The application sought forex at the official rate for an admission allegedly granted by the institution.
UBA rejected the request after routine verification checks revealed discrepancies: the “Sanctus Institute” did not exist as described; documents, including an admission letter, featured fictitious details, forged signatures matching those from the University of Salford, and logos from unrelated German and UK entities. Further probes, including SWIFT network confirmations and web searches, confirmed the submissions were fabricated, potentially for “round-tripping” obtaining official-rate forex for resale at black-market premiums.
Citing Central Bank of Nigeria regulations on Bank Verification Number (BVN) operations and anti-fraud watchlisting, UBA placed Asime on its internal watchlist, prohibiting transactions until delisting. Asime claimed this froze over N8.6 million meant for his education, forcing him to rely on family and friends in England, suffer “untold hardship and humiliation,” and return to Nigeria prematurely. He sought declarations of unlawfulness, an order to lift the restriction, a perpetual injunction against future interferences, N150 million in general damages, and 21% pre- and post-judgment interest from May 2022.
On July 12, 2023, Justice S.U. Bature of the Federal Capital Territory High Court dismissed UBA’s preliminary objection on jurisdiction, ruling the matter fell under fundamental rights enforcement rather than ordinary contract law. The court granted all reliefs, including the damages and account unfreezing, holding that banks cannot restrict customer funds without a court order, as it breaches constitutional protections.
UBA appealed, arguing the suit was incompetent as it involved a banker-customer contractual breach, not enforceable via fundamental rights procedures, and that it had a duty to combat fraud under CBN guidelines.
Delivering the lead judgment, Justice Ugo held that while Nigerians enjoy constitutional protections, not every contractual dispute qualifies as a fundamental rights violation. He emphasized that Asime failed to prove UBA intended “compulsory acquisition” of his funds under Section 44 – the restriction was a temporary detention to prevent fraud, not acquisition.
“The detention of a thing does not necessarily equate to compulsory acquisition,” Justice Ugo noted, citing precedents like Foundation for Peace and Unity v. United Bank for Africa Plc and Sanusi v. Ayah. He clarified that bank deposits create a debtor-creditor relationship: customer funds are not “property” in the constitutional sense but a chose in action enforceable via ordinary writs of summons, not ex parte fundamental rights motions.
The panel concurred that the suit was wrongly instituted under the 2009 Rules, lacking jurisdiction at the High Court. Even on merits, no evidence showed UBA’s actions were unlawful; banks have a fiduciary duty to verify forex applications and report suspicions to stem money laundering, as mandated by CBN frameworks.
Justices Danjuma and Musale echoed this, with Danjuma adding that commencing actions via incorrect processes renders them a nullity (Nkemdirim v. Nwosu (1962) 1 NWLR), and Musale noting the lower court’s decision deserved no hesitation in reversal.
UBA Plc v Stephen Smart Asime
Counsel: Obinna Mbata Esq. (with Felix Abiodun Esq.) for UBA; Segun Fiki Esq. for Asime.
The post Asime’s Suit Over Frozen Account Declared Null — Court Of Appeal Rules Bank Deposits Enforceable Via Ordinary Writs, Not Fundamental Rights appeared first on TheNigeriaLawyer.