A customer of Kuda Microfinance Bank, Mr. Abdulrahman Ekundayo, has instituted an action against the bank before the Federal High Court, Lagos, challenging the alleged unlawful freezing of the corporate account of his company, Multibusiness Global Enterprise.
At the hearing on Tuesday, counsel to the applicant, Mr. Olalekan Ogunbunmi, informed the court that all processes had been duly served on the respondent and that the bank was aware of the proceedings.
However, Justice Ambrose Lewis‑Allagoa, upon examining the case file, observed that there was no proof of service on record. The court consequently directed that a hearing notice be issued and properly served on the respondent, and adjourned the matter to 24 March 2026 for report of service.
The suit, marked FHC/L/CS/2230/2025, was filed by the applicant through his counsel, alleging that the bank violated his fundamental rights by placing restrictions on the company’s account without any subsisting court order.
The originating application was brought pursuant to Sections 34, 35, 36, 41, 43 and 46 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), alongside the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules, 2009.
The applicant seeks, among other reliefs, a declaration that the freezing of his account without lawful authority is illegal, wrongful, unconstitutional, and constitutes a breach of his fundamental rights. He further prays the court for an order directing Kuda Microfinance Bank to immediately unfreeze the corporate account (No. 3001195269) maintained by Multibusiness Global Enterprise.
An order compelling the respondent to release funds allegedly placed under lien, including: ₦4,444,540 held since 5 July 2025; ₦502,100 held since 8 July 2025; and ₦2,896,680 held since 15 July 2025.
The applicant also sought an order mandating the release of all sums currently held under lien in the applicant’s corporate account.
In support of the application, the applicant contends that he is a law‑abiding citizen who has committed no offence known to law. He asserts that the respondent has no lawful justification for any threat of arrest, humiliation, or detention, and that the only transactions carried out were legitimate and supported by documentary evidence.
The applicant maintains that the restriction imposed on his account, absent a valid court order, is unlawful, unjustified, and amounts to a violation of his constitutionally guaranteed rights.
