In respect of the second plaintiff, the court held that Access Bank unlawfully maintained restrictions on his account despite the absence of any evidence linking him to cryptocurrency transactions. Consequently, the court awarded ₦5 million in damages in his favour and ordered the immediate lifting of all restrictions placed on the account.
The court further considered the case of the fourth plaintiff, which it described as particularly unfortunate. It was established that funds were mistakenly credited into his account, with no allegation that he fraudulently received or utilised the money. Although a customary court had only directed a reversal of the erroneous transfer, Access Bank proceeded to impose a post-no-debit restriction without any valid court order authorising such action.
Honourable Justice Aneke held that the restriction placed on the fourth plaintiff’s account was unlawful and awarded ₦10 million in damages, while also directing the bank to immediately remove the restriction.
Regarding the third plaintiff, the court acknowledged that an earlier court order had initially justified the account restriction. However, it noted that no evidence was presented showing that the plaintiff was being prosecuted for any criminal offence. Relying on the constitutional principle of presumption of innocence, the court ruled that the continued restriction could no longer be sustained.
The court also observed that the fifth plaintiff was not involved in cryptocurrency trading and noted that the restriction on his account had already been lifted.
In its final observations, the court stated that no evidence was adduced to show that Access Bank’s actions were based on suspicious transaction patterns. Rather, the restrictions were imposed solely on alleged links to cryptocurrency transactions and purported court directives.
The court accordingly awarded damages in favour of the affected plaintiffs and ordered Access Bank to pay ₦500,000 each as costs to the second and fourth plaintiffs.
The judgment underscores the principle that financial institutions must act strictly within the confines of the law when restricting customer accounts, and that individuals cannot be subjected to indefinite account restrictions without lawful justification or evidence of wrongdoing.
