A Federal High Court in Abuja has summoned the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) and the Nigeria Deposit Insurance Corporation (NDIC) to show cause why they should not be restrained from taking further action on the recent revocation of the licences of Aso Savings and Loans Plc and Union Homes Savings and Loans Plc.
Justice Emeka Nwite issued the order in a ruling delivered yesterday on an ex parte motion filed by the two mortgage institutions. The motion was moved by their lawyer, Joseph Silas.
The judge declined the applicants’ request for an order restraining the respondents but directed that the CBN and the NDIC be put on notice.
He said: “I have listened to the submission of counsel for the plaintiffs/applicants and gone through the affidavit evidence and exhibits, including the written address.
“I am of the opinion, and I so hold, that the interest of justice will be met by putting the defendants on notice.
“I hereby order that the defendants be put on notice to come and show cause why the reliefs sought should not be granted.”
Justice Nwite adjourned the matter till January 5 next year for the CBN and the NDIC to show cause.
The plaintiffs, Aso Savings, Union Homes, Ridhwan Hamza and Ismaila Adamu, in the ex parte motion, sought two reliefs:
• An order restraining the defendants/respondents from taking further steps on the purported revocation of the operational licences of the first and second plaintiffs, Aso Savings and Union Homes, pending the hearing and determination of the motion on notice.
• An order barring the defendants/respondents from enforcing their alleged unlawful decision in any way, form or manner against the first and second plaintiffs/applicants, pending the hearing and determination of the motion on notice.
Silas, while moving the motion, argued that the CBN did not comply with the condition precedent for invoking its power to revoke the operating licences of the two mortgage institutions.
The lawyer averred that the NDIC, without allowing the two institutions to exhaust their rights of action, sought to curtail those rights by attempting to take them over.
He added that if the CBN and NDIC were not restrained, they would impose their alleged unlawful decisions on the plaintiffs/applicants in an irreversible manner.
In a supporting affidavit, Hamza, described as a shareholder in Aso Savings, admitted that the institutions had operational challenges, which the CBN was aware of.
Hamza claimed that the CBN, without attempting to intervene in the challenges faced by the plaintiffs, issued an ultimatum requiring Aso Savings to meet its minimum capital requirement by ensuring that all share reconstruction activities were concluded in a manner that fully addressed the capital shortfall no later than August 31, 2025.
He said: “I know that notwithstanding the positive updates made to the first defendant/respondent (CBN) by the plaintiffs/applicants on December 16, 2025, in a press release titled ‘Revocation of the Operational Licences of Aso Savings and Loans Plc and Union Homes Savings and Loans Plc’,
“The first defendant/respondent, relying on Section 12 of BOFIA 2020 and Section 7.3 of its Revised Guidelines for Mortgage Banks, revoked the licences of the plaintiffs/applicants.”
He said the decision was grounded on:
• Failure to meet the minimum paid-up share capital requirement for the category of bank licence granted to the plaintiffs/applicants;
• Insufficient assets to meet liabilities, resulting in critical undercapitalisation with a capital adequacy ratio below the prudential minimum prescribed by the 1st defendant/respondent; and