adplus-dvertising
Business News

Magistrate Courts lack jurisdiction to entertain applications to freeze Bank Accounts, says FCT Judge 

A High Court of the Federal Capital Territory has declared that Magistrate Courts lack the jurisdiction to entertain applications for orders to freeze a person’s bank account.

The Court also held that the Chief Magistrate Court of Nasarawa State lacks jurisdiction to freeze a Zenith Bank customer’s account via an ex parte application by the Nigeria Police Force.

Justice S. U. Bature declared this in a verdict delivered in a suit filed by Paulyn O. Abhulimen, SAN, trading under the name and style of Abhulimen & Co (FCT/HC/CV/2194/2024) against Zenith Bank and the Nigeria Police Force.

The judge held in a certified true copy of the judgment (dated July 16, 2025), seen by Naijaonpoint, that “it is clear that Magistrate Courts lack the jurisdiction to entertain an application for an order to freeze a person’s bank account, and should not have entertained the said application in its entirety.” 

Abhulimen’s lawyers, Kehinde & Partners LP, claimed that in early 2024, after being unable to access the account of their client’s firm, Abhulimen & Co, and unable to make transactions, it was discovered that Zenith Bank had placed a Post-No-Debit (PND) on it.

The legal team alleged they contacted an official of the bank, Obi Okafor, who allegedly confirmed the development.

The applicant argued that on March 13, 2024, the bank claimed to have frozen the account based on an order obtained by the Nigeria Police Force from a Chief Magistrate Court in Mararaba Gurku, Nasarawa State.

The applicant sought several reliefs, including a declaration that the Chief Magistrate Court, Nasarawa, lacked jurisdiction to freeze its account at the bank’s Abuja branch.

The applicant also sought an order for “N300 million as general damages for the embarrassment, psychological trauma, financial distress, emotional stress, and grave inconveniences suffered by the claimant due to the defendants’ actions.” 

Zenith Bank’s legal team argued that its actions at its Abuja branch were “taken in compliance with a lawful court order and in accordance with statutory obligations.” 

The bank maintained that it could not be held responsible for any loss allegedly suffered by the claimant.

The court was urged by the bank not to grant the reliefs sought by the claimant on the grounds that they were allegedly “unsubstantiated”.

Passing judgment, Justice Bature held that the rationale behind seeking the said order at a Magistrate Court under Nasarawa State jurisdiction could not be understood, and the Nigeria Police Force (the second defendant) did not appear throughout the proceedings to explain or justify their line of action.

“Thus, the 1st defendant was wrong to have placed a PND on the claimant’s account based on the order of a court lacking the requisite jurisdiction to do so. I so hold,” the judge declared.

“Regarding the substantive jurisdiction of the court to make the order, it is clear from the provisions of Section 251 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (1999 as amended) that matters relating to banks and banking transactions are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal High Court; matters relating to banker-customer disputes are jointly under the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court, State High Courts, and the High Court of the FCT,” Justice Bature added.

“The defendants are hereby ordered to jointly and severally pay the sum of N60 million to the claimant as general damages for the embarrassment, psychological trauma, financial distress, emotional stress, and grave inconveniences suffered due to the defendants’ actions. 

“The defendants are hereby ordered to jointly and severally pay the sum of N60 million to the claimant as general damages for the embarrassment, psychological trauma, financial distress, emotional stress, and grave inconveniences suffered due to the defendants’ actions. 

“The defendants are hereby ordered to jointly and severally pay the sum of N25 million to the claimant as costs of this action,” Justice Bature declared.

He highlighted that an order to freeze a bank account cannot validly be granted ex parte with a view to lasting indefinitely.