The judgment, delivered by Justice Chukwujekwu Joseph Aneke on June 1, 2026, arose from a suit marked FHC/L/CS/878/2023, in which several plaintiffs challenged the bank’s decision to restrict access to their accounts over alleged links to cryptocurrency transactions.
In his ruling, Justice Aneke examined the circumstances surrounding each of the affected customers and held that while financial institutions have a duty to comply with lawful court orders, they cannot arbitrarily freeze or restrict customers’ accounts without proper legal authority.
The court first held that the first plaintiff lacked the legal standing to maintain an action against Access Bank because there was no contractual relationship between him and the bank. Consequently, the claim against the bank in respect of the first plaintiff failed.
You May Like:Providus Bank Faces Scrutiny in $7m Row
However, the court found in favour of several other plaintiffs, ruling that there was insufficient evidence to justify the restrictions imposed on their accounts.
Justice Aneke noted that evidence before the court showed that the first plaintiff conducted cryptocurrency-related business activities outside Nigeria, particularly in the Benin Republic, and that there was no proof that such activities were unlawful within the jurisdiction where they occurred.
The court further found that the second and third plaintiffs were not involved in cryptocurrency trading in Nigeria and that merely receiving funds linked to the first plaintiff did not constitute a valid basis for restricting their accounts.
According to the judgment, funds transferred to the second, third, fourth and fifth plaintiffs were received for valuable consideration, while no evidence was presented to establish that they participated in any unlawful cryptocurrency transactions.
The judge emphasized that banks must operate within the confines of the law when imposing restrictions on customer accounts and can only do so where there is lawful authority or a valid court order.
In the case of the second plaintiff, the court held that Access Bank wrongfully maintained restrictions on the account despite the absence of evidence linking the customer to cryptocurrency trading. The court consequently awarded N5 million in damages and ordered the immediate removal of all restrictions on the account.
The court also examined the case of the fourth plaintiff, whose account received funds that were mistakenly transferred by another party.
Justice Aneke described the circumstances as particularly unfortunate, noting that there was no allegation that the fourth plaintiff fraudulently obtained or utilised the funds.
The court held that although a customary court had ordered the reversal of the mistaken payment, Access Bank went further by placing a post-no-debit restriction on the account without any judicial order authorising such action.
The restriction was declared unlawful, and the plaintiff was awarded N10 million in damages. The court also ordered the bank to immediately lift the restriction.
Regarding the third plaintiff, the court acknowledged that an earlier court order justified the initial restriction placed on the account. However, the judge ruled that the continued restriction could not be sustained because no evidence was presented showing that the plaintiff was facing prosecution for any criminal offence.
Relying on the constitutional principle of presumption of innocence, the court held that the account should no longer remain under restriction.
The court further observed that the fifth plaintiff was not involved in cryptocurrency trading and noted that the restriction on the account had already been lifted.
In its final findings, the court stated that no evidence was presented showing that the restrictions were based on suspicious transaction patterns or unusual account activities. Instead, the restrictions were imposed largely on the basis of alleged links to cryptocurrency transactions and purported court directives.
Justice Aneke subsequently awarded N500,000 each as litigation costs to the second and fourth plaintiffs in addition to the damages awarded.
More details here...
