A corporate customer, Abdulrahman Ekundayo Multibusiness Global Enterprise, has instituted a suit against Kuda Microfinance Bank before the Federal High Court sitting in Lagos over the alleged unlawful freezing of its account.
The suit, marked FHC/L/CS/2230/2025, was filed by the applicant through its counsel, Olalekan Ogunbunmi, reports The Guardian.
It was brought pursuant to Sections 34, 35, 36, 41, 43 and 46 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended), relevant provisions of the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules 2009, and the inherent jurisdiction of the court.
In the application, the claimant is asking the court to declare that the freezing of its account by Kuda Microfinance Bank without a court order or lawful justification is illegal, wrongful and unconstitutional, and amounts to a violation of its fundamental rights.
The applicant is also seeking an order directing the bank to unfreeze its corporate account maintained with Kuda Microfinance Bank, bearing account number 3001195269,and to release funds allegedly placed under lien on different dates in July 2025.
According to court documents, the sums involved include N4,444,540 allegedly placed under lien on July 5, 2025; N502,100 on July 8, 2025; and N2,896,680 on July 15, 2025. The applicant further prayed the court to order the release of all funds currently under lien on its account.
In stating the grounds for the reliefs sought, the applicant maintained that it is a law-abiding entity and did not commit any offence known to law.
It also alleged that the bank had no lawful justification for restricting the account or for any alleged threats of arrest, humiliation or detention.
The applicant further claimed that the transactions that led to the restriction were legitimate and supported by evidence, adding that the account was frozen without a court order or any lawful cause.
At the hearing of the matter, counsel to the applicant told the court that all necessary processes had been served on Kuda Microfinance Bank and that the bank was aware of the proceedings.
However, the presiding judge, after reviewing the court records, observed that there was no proof of service in the case file. Consequently, the court ordered that a fresh hearing notice be issued and served on the defendant bank. The matter was adjourned till March 24, 2026, for a report of service.
