Court upholds finding that Zenith Bank relied on an invalid ex-parte order from a Nasarawa Magistrate Court to place a Post-No-Debit restriction on Abuja law firm’s account
By A1NEWS International
ABUJA, September 14, 2026 — The Court of Appeal in Abuja has affirmed an N85 million monetary award against Zenith Bank Plc and the Nigeria Police Force (NPF) over the freezing of a customer’s bank account based on an order obtained from a Magistrate Court which the trial court found lacked jurisdiction to issue such an order.
A three-member panel of the appellate court, led by Justice Adebukola Banjoko, unanimously dismissed Zenith Bank’s appeal, holding that the challenge to the judgment of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) lacked merit.
The decision effectively leaves in place the substantive findings of the FCT High Court that the bank acted unlawfully when it placed a Post-No-Debit (PND) restriction on the account of Abhulimen & Co, a law firm operated by Paulyn O. Abhulimen, SAN.
The case raises significant questions about the obligations of financial institutions when responding to law-enforcement requests and court orders, particularly where such orders are obtained ex-parte and from a court whose territorial or subject-matter jurisdiction is subsequently found to be defective.
The Dispute Behind the N85m Award
The legal battle arose from Suit No. FCT/HC/CV/2194/2024, instituted by Abhulimen against Zenith Bank and the Nigeria Police Force.
According to the claimant’s case, she discovered in early 2024 that she could no longer access or conduct transactions through the account belonging to her firm.
Upon making inquiries, she was informed by an official of Zenith Bank responsible for the account, identified as Obi Okafor, that a Post-No-Debit restriction had been placed on it.
The bank subsequently stated that the restriction was imposed on March 13, 2024, pursuant to an order allegedly obtained by the Nigeria Police Force from a Chief Magistrates’ Court sitting in Mararaba Gurku, Nasarawa State.
That explanation became central to the litigation.
The claimant challenged both the legality of the order and the bank’s decision to act upon it without adequately informing her that the account had been restricted.
Trial Court Questioned Jurisdiction of Magistrate Court
In his July 16, 2025 judgment, Justice S. U. Bature of the FCT High Court found that the Magistrate Court relied upon by the defendants lacked the requisite jurisdiction to issue an order freezing the claimant’s bank account.
The judge noted that the account was maintained at Zenith Bank’s Transcorp Hilton branch in Abuja and that the Nigeria Police Force was also domiciled in Abuja.
He consequently questioned why the application for the account-freezing order had been taken before a Magistrate Court in Nasarawa State.
Justice Bature held that the territorial jurisdiction of the court was defective.
But the court’s concern went beyond territorial jurisdiction.
It also examined the substantive jurisdiction required to make an order affecting a banking relationship.
Banking Jurisdiction Became Central to the Case
The trial court relied on the constitutional framework governing jurisdiction over banking and banker-customer disputes.
Justice Bature referred to Section 251 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, as amended, concerning the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court over matters relating to banks and banking transactions.
The judge further distinguished those matters from banker-customer disputes, which may fall within the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court, State High Courts and the High Court of the FCT, depending on the circumstances.
Against that legal background, Justice Bature concluded that a Magistrate Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain an application seeking an order to freeze the claimant’s bank account.
The judgment therefore found that the underlying order could not provide a lawful basis for Zenith Bank’s restriction of the account.
Court Faults Zenith Bank’s Legal Department
One of the strongest aspects of the trial court’s judgment was its criticism of Zenith Bank’s reliance on the disputed court order.
Justice Bature observed that the bank had a legal department staffed by lawyers who, in the court’s view, ought to have identified the jurisdictional defect before acting on the order.
The court consequently rejected the argument that the bank could simply rely on the existence of a purported court order without independently considering whether the order was legally valid and capable of enforcement.
The judgment stated that the bank was wrong to place the PND restriction on the claimant’s account on the strength of an order issued by a court lacking the requisite jurisdiction.
That finding formed an important part of the legal basis for the damages awarded against the defendants.
Failure to Notify Customer Also Found Unlawful
The court also faulted Zenith Bank for failing to promptly inform the claimant that a Post-No-Debit restriction had been placed on her firm’s account.
According to the judgment, the claimant only became aware of the restriction after encountering difficulties while attempting to use the account.
Justice Bature held that the bank owed the customer a duty of care to inform her of the restriction affecting her account.
The failure to provide timely notification was consequently held to constitute negligence and a breach of the bank’s duty of care and due diligence.
The finding is significant because the court treated the dispute not merely as a question of whether a court order existed, but also as one involving the broader banker-customer relationship and the bank’s obligations to its customer.
Court Rejects Indefinite Ex-Parte Account Freezes
The trial court further declared that an order freezing a bank account could not validly be granted ex-parte and allowed to remain in force indefinitely.
Justice Bature specifically declared that the Chief Magistrate Court sitting at Mararaba Gurku lacked the requisite jurisdiction to make the order freezing the claimant’s Zenith Bank account.
The court also held that freezing the account without a valid order from a court of competent jurisdiction constituted a breach of the banker-customer relationship.
The ruling ordered Zenith Bank to immediately lift the Post-No-Debit restriction.
N60m General Damages, N25m Costs
Having found against Zenith Bank and the Nigeria Police Force, the FCT High Court ordered the defendants to jointly and severally pay N60 million in general damages to the claimant.
The court said the damages were compensation for the alleged embarrassment, psychological trauma, financial distress, emotional stress and grave inconvenience resulting from the defendants’ actions.
An additional N25 million was awarded as costs of the action.
Together, the two sums amounted to N85 million.
The court also directed Zenith Bank to tender an unreserved written apology to the claimant and publish the apology in two national newspapers and on the bank’s websites.
Zenith Bank Takes Case to Court of Appeal
Dissatisfied with the judgment, Zenith Bank appealed under Appeal No. CA/ABJ/CV/1335/2025.
The bank challenged the decision of the FCT High Court and sought appellate intervention in the dispute.
However, the Court of Appeal, sitting in Abuja, dismissed the appeal in a unanimous decision delivered by the three-member panel led by Justice Adebukola Banjoko.
With the appeal dismissed, the N85 million award and the key orders made by the trial court remain affirmed.
Why the Judgment Matters
Beyond the parties involved, the decision has broader implications for the relationship between banks, law-enforcement agencies and customers whose accounts are subjected to restrictions.
Banks routinely receive requests and orders relating to financial investigations, suspected criminal activity and disputed transactions. However, the judgment underscores that the existence of an order is not necessarily the end of the bank’s legal responsibility where questions arise concerning the jurisdiction or validity of the issuing court.
The case also highlights the importance of procedural safeguards when an account is restricted without prior notice to the customer.
For customers, the judgment reinforces the principle that access to a bank account cannot be curtailed indefinitely on the basis of an order that lacks legal validity.
For financial institutions and law-enforcement agencies, it places renewed emphasis on jurisdiction, due diligence, procedural compliance and the need to ensure that court orders relied upon to restrict customers’ accounts are legally enforceable.
A Broader Accountability Question
The case ultimately presents a wider institutional question: how much responsibility should a bank bear when it acts on a purported judicial order that turns out to be legally defective?
The FCT High Court’s answer was unequivocal in this case. The court found that Zenith Bank should have recognised the jurisdictional defect and should not have relied on the order to restrict the customer’s account.
The Court of Appeal’s dismissal of Zenith Bank’s appeal now leaves that finding intact.
The affirmation of the N85 million award represents a significant judicial rebuke of the freezing of a customer’s account on the authority of an order issued by a court found to lack the necessary jurisdiction.
It also reinforces two related principles emerging from the litigation: banks must exercise due diligence when acting on judicial orders, and customers should not be left uninformed when restrictions are imposed on their accounts.
For Zenith Bank and the Nigeria Police Force, the case demonstrates the potential financial and legal consequences of relying on a defective process to interfere with a customer’s banking relationship.
A1NEWS International will continue to monitor the implementation of the appellate decision and any further legal developments arising from the case.
Leave a Reply