Access Bank Slammed ₦16m For illegal Account Restriction.
A Federal High Court in Ikoyi, Lagos, has ordered Access Bank Plc to pay ₦16 million in damages for unlawfully restricting customer accounts without sufficient legal justification [1]. Delivering the judgment on June 1, 2026, in suit number FHC/L/CS/878/2023, Justice Chukwujekwu Joseph Aneke ruled that the bank's actions were arbitrary.
The case, which focused on restrictions linked to alleged cryptocurrency transactions, found that the bank imposed "post-no-debit" measures without valid court orders or concrete evidence of wrongdoing [1]. The ruling emphasizes the legal requirements for financial institutions when freezing customer assets.
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.
Furthermore, the court emphasized that financial institutions must fully respect judicial processes. It reiterated that when a valid court order is in place, banks are legally bound to comply with its terms until a competent court formally sets that order aside.
Regarding the second plaintiff, the court ruled that Access Bank acted wrongfully by maintaining restrictions on the account despite a complete lack of evidence pointing to any wrongdoing. Consequently, the judge awarded ₦5 million in damages to the affected customer and ordered the immediate lifting of all account restrictions.
The court delivered an even sharper rebuke concerning the fourth plaintiff, describing his ordeal as a particularly unfortunate situation. According to the judgment, funds had simply been transferred into his account by mistake, with no allegations of fraud, criminal intent, or illegal acquisition ever brought against him.
The court noted that a customary court had only issued an order for the bank to reverse the erroneous transfer. Despite this limited directive, Access Bank allegedly overstepped by imposing a strict post-no-debit restriction on the customer's entire account.
This sweeping restriction was executed completely outside the law. The judge condemned the act, highlighting that the financial institution enforced the freeze without any valid, authorizing court order to back up its decision.
Justice Aneke ruled that the restriction on the fourth plaintiff was entirely unlawful and indefensible. Consequently, the court awarded ₦10 million in damages to the customer and ordered the bank to lift all account restrictions immediately.
Turning to the third plaintiff, the court acknowledged that an earlier judicial order had initially justified the bank's decision to freeze the account. However, Justice Aneke pointed out that the bank presented no evidence showing the customer was facing any active criminal prosecution.
Invoking the constitutional principle of the presumption of innocence, the court held that a prolonged account freeze was unsustainable. Without an active criminal trial, the financial institution had no legal basis to continue locking the customer out of their funds.
For the fifth plaintiff, the court confirmed that the customer had not engaged in cryptocurrency trading as alleged. The judge noted that while the bank had already lifted the account restriction before the judgment, the initial enforcement remained unjustified.
In its final analysis, the court observed that Access Bank did not act on genuine suspicions of fraudulent transaction patterns. Instead, the bank relied entirely on unverified cryptocurrency links and a flawed interpretation of regulatory and court directives.
Justice Aneke concluded with a stern warning, stressing that financial institutions must operate strictly within clear legal boundaries. The judge declared that arbitrary account freezes without proper judicial backing violate customer rights and will not be tolerated.