Court slams Access Bank with N16m damages over unlawful account restrictions

A Federal High Court sitting in Ikoyi, Lagos, has awarded N16 million in damages against Access Bank Plc for unlawfully placing post-no-debit restrictions on the accounts of several customers without sufficient legal justification.

The judgment, delivered on June 1, 2026, by Justice Chukwujekwu Joseph Aneke in suit number FHC/L/CS/878/2023, followed arguments from both the affected customers and the financial institution over the legality of account restrictions linked to alleged cryptocurrency transactions.

The case centred on claims that Access Bank had imposed restrictive measures on multiple accounts without valid court orders or adequate evidence of wrongdoing.

In his ruling, Justice Aneke held that the first plaintiff had no contractual relationship with Access Bank and therefore lacked the legal standing to maintain a suit against the bank. The court consequently absolved the bank of liability in that instance.

However, the court found in favour of other plaintiffs, ruling that there was no credible evidence that the second and third plaintiffs engaged in cryptocurrency trading in Nigeria, nor any justification for restricting their accounts simply because they received funds linked to the first plaintiff.

The judge noted that evidence presented showed the first plaintiff conducted cryptocurrency-related activities outside Nigeria, particularly in the Republic of Benin, where such transactions were not proven to be illegal.

Justice Aneke further held that funds transferred to the second, third, fourth, and fifth plaintiffs were made for legitimate value and that there was no evidence linking them to any unlawful cryptocurrency dealings.

He emphasised that while banks are empowered to place post-no-debit restrictions under specific legal conditions, such powers must be exercised strictly within the law and cannot be applied arbitrarily.

READ ALSO: Delta Court sends suspended Police team to custody over suspect’s death

The court also reiterated that where a valid court order exists, financial institutions are bound to comply until such an order is set aside by a competent court.

On the second plaintiff’s account, the court ruled that Access Bank wrongfully maintained restrictions despite no evidence of wrongdoing. The judge awarded N5 million in damages and ordered the immediate removal of all restrictions on the account.

The court also delivered a stronger rebuke in relation to the fourth plaintiff, describing his case as particularly unfortunate. According to the judgment, funds were mistakenly transferred into his account, and there was no allegation of fraud or illegal acquisition.

Although a customary court had only ordered a reversal of the erroneous transfer, Access Bank allegedly imposed a post-no-debit restriction without any valid court order authorising such action.

Justice Aneke held that the restriction was unlawful and awarded N10 million in damages in favour of the fourth plaintiff, in addition to ordering the immediate lifting of the restriction.

Regarding the third plaintiff, the court acknowledged that an earlier court order had initially justified the restriction. However, Justice Aneke noted that no evidence was presented to show that the plaintiff was being prosecuted for any criminal offence.

Relying on the constitutional principle of presumption of innocence, the court held that the continued restriction could no longer be sustained.

The fifth plaintiff was also found not to have engaged in cryptocurrency trading, with the court noting that the restriction on his account had already been lifted.

In its final observations, the court held that there was no evidence that Access Bank imposed restrictions based on suspicious transaction patterns. Instead, the actions were based solely on alleged cryptocurrency links and unverified reliance on court directives.

Justice Aneke stressed that financial institutions must operate within clear legal boundaries when restricting customers’ access to their funds, warning against arbitrary account freezes without proper legal backing.

The court also awarded N500,000 each as costs in favour of the second and fourth plaintiffs, further reinforcing its stance against unlawful banking restrictions.