According to News Extra ‘s report, a Federal High Court sitting in Ikoyi, Lagos on the 1st of June 2026 awarded 16 million naira damages against Access Bank Plc for unlawfully placing post-no-debit restrictions on the accounts of some of its customers without sufficient legal justification in a suit marked FHC/L/CS/878/2023.
In a judgment delivered by Honourable Justice Chukwujekwu Joseph Aneke after considering the arguments of the plaintiffs and the defence presented by Access Bank, the court made several findings regarding the legality of restrictions placed on the accounts of the plaintiffs over alleged cryptocurrency-related transactions.
The judge held that the first plaintiff had no contractual relationship whatsoever with Access Bank and therefore could not maintain an action against the bank. Consequently, the bank was found not liable to the first plaintiff.
However, the court found that the second and third plaintiffs did not engage in cryptocurrency trading in Nigeria and that there was no valid basis for placing restrictions on their accounts merely because they had received funds linked to the first plaintiff.
Justice Aneke noted that the evidence before it showed that the first plaintiff conducted cryptocurrency-related business outside Nigeria, particularly in the Benin Republic, where such transactions were not shown to be illegal.
The court further held that funds transferred to the second, third, fourth and fifth plaintiffs were made for valuable consideration and that there was no evidence establishing their involvement in any unlawful cryptocurrency activities.
While reviewing the restrictions placed on the accounts, the court emphasized that banks are regulated by law in imposing post-no-debit restrictions and cannot arbitrarily freeze customers’ accounts without proper legal authority. The court agreed that where there is a valid court order, financial institutions are obligated to obey such orders until they are set aside by a competent court.
In the case of the second plaintiff, the court found that Access Bank wrongfully maintained restrictions on his account despite the absence of any evidence linking him to cryptocurrency trading. The court consequently awarded 5 million naira as damages in her favour and ordered the immediate removal of all restrictions on the account.
The court also examined the circumstances surrounding the fourth plaintiff and described his situation as particularly unfortunate. According to the judgment, funds were mistakenly transferred into his account, and there was no allegation that he fraudulently obtained or utilized the money.
Although a customary court had merely ordered a reversal of the erroneous payment, Access Bank proceeded to place a post-no-debit restriction on the account without any court order authorizing such action.
Honourable Justice Aneke ruled that the restriction imposed on the fourth plaintiff’s account was unlawful and awarded him N10 million in damages, while directing the bank to immediately lift the restriction.
Regarding the third plaintiff, the court acknowledged that an earlier court order had justified the initial restriction on the account. However, the judge observed that no evidence was presented showing that the plaintiff was being prosecuted for any criminal offence. Relying on the constitutional principle of the presumption of innocence, the court held that the continued restriction could no longer be justified.
The judge also noted that the fifth plaintiff was not involved in cryptocurrency trading and took judicial notice of the fact that the restriction on his account had already been removed.
In its final observations, the judge stated that no evidence was presented to show that Access Bank restricted the accounts of the affected customers based on suspicious transaction volumes. Rather, the restrictions were imposed solely because of alleged links to cryptocurrency transactions and purported court orders.
The judge subsequently awarded damages in favour of the affected plaintiffs and further ordered Access Bank to pay N500,000 each as costs to the second and fourth plaintiffs.
The judgment reinforces the principle that banks must act strictly within the confines of the law when restricting customers’ access to their funds and that citizens cannot be punished through indefinite account restrictions without proper legal backing or proof of wrongdoing.
