Micah Jonah
February 5, 2026
A customer of Kuda Microfinance Bank, Abdulrahman Ekundayo, has dragged the bank before the Federal High Court in Lagos over the alleged unlawful freezing of its Multibusiness Global Enterprise corporate account.
When the matter came up for hearing on Tuesday, counsel to the applicant, Olalekan Ogunbunmi, told the court that all processes had been served on the respondent and that the bank was aware of the day’s proceedings.
However, Justice Ambrose Lewis Allagoa, after reviewing the court file, noted that there was no proof of service before the court.
“There is no evidence of service in the court record,” the judge observed.
The court consequently ordered that a hearing notice be issued, properly served in the bank, adjourned the matter until March 24, 2026, for report of service.
The applicant, in the suit marked FHC L CS 2230 2025, accused the bank of violating its fundamental rights by placing restrictions on its corporate account without a court order.
According to the originating application filed pursuant to Sections 34, 35, 36, 41, 43 and 46 of the 1999 Constitution as amended and the Fundamental Rights Enforcement Procedure Rules 2009, the applicant contended that the action of the bank was unlawful.
The applicant urged the court to declare that the freezing of its account by the respondent without a court order or lawful excuse was illegal, wrongful, unconstitutional and a violation of its fundamental rights.
The applicant also asked the court to order Kuda Microfinance Bank to immediately unfreeze its corporate account.
It further prayed the court to compel the bank to release various sums allegedly placed under lien on the account, including N4,444,540 allegedly held from July 5, 2025, N502,100 allegedly held from July 8, 2025, and N2,896,680 allegedly held from July 15, 2025.
The applicant also sought an order directing the respondent to release all funds held under lien on its corporate account.
In stating the grounds for the suit, the applicant maintained that it is a law abiding entity and did not commit any offence known to law.
It further stated that the respondent had no lawful excuse for any threat of arrest, humiliation or detention against it, adding that its only action was engaging in legitimate transactions backed by evidence.
The applicant insisted that the restriction placed on its account without a court order was unlawful and unjustified, as no offence had been committed to warrant such action.
