The Federal High Court in Lagos has ordered Access Bank Plc to pay ₦7 million in damages to a customer, Mrs. Oluwasesan Ifeoluwa Bridget, for violating her fundamental human rights.
What Happened?
On July 1, 2023, Bridget discovered that Access Bank had frozen her account (Account No: 0054695391) without any prior notice. The restriction, called a Post No Debit (PND), stopped her from accessing her own money. Despite visiting the bank multiple times, staff told her it was an “internal issue” and failed to resolve it.
Access Bank later claimed it had received a court order on July 16, 2023 from a Magistrate Court in Masaka, Nasarawa State instructing the bank to freeze the account. But Bridget pointed out that the account was already frozen two weeks earlier, on July 1 — before the court order was supposedly given.
Court’s Judgment
Justice Ayokunle Faji, who delivered the judgment on Monday, June 23, 2025, found that:
- Access Bank acted unlawfully by freezing Bridget’s account without a valid court order.
- The court order Access Bank claimed to have was:
- Not Certified True Copy (CTC), meaning it was not verified or officially stamped.
- Addressed to non-existent entities: “Access Bank Ltd” and “Manager Access Bank” instead of the proper legal name, Access Bank Plc.
- The judge said that with a full legal department, Access Bank should have known that the order could not be enforced.
The Consequences for Bridget
Tragically, in September 2023, Bridget survived an assassination attempt, leaving her with severe injuries, including broken legs and spinal damage. She spent over eight months in a wheelchair and couldn’t access her money to pay for medical care due to the frozen account.
When she partially recovered in September 2024, she resumed efforts to unfreeze her account. Her lawyers sent a letter to Access Bank on October 7, 2024, asking for the restriction to be lifted — but the bank ignored it.
Access Bank’s defense was that the court order justified their action and that this was just a regular customer complaint, not a violation of fundamental rights.
Final Ruling
But Justice Faji disagreed. He ruled that:
- The bank’s action was unconstitutional, violating Section 44(1) of Nigeria’s 1999 Constitution, which protects a person’s right to own property.
- The restriction was placed without any legal backing, causing emotional and financial distress.
As a result, the court awarded ₦7 million to Bridget as compensation for the harm done to her rights and well-being.
This case highlights the importance of banks following due process and the power of the law in protecting the rights of everyday citizens.
