Susan Abayomi
The Court of Appeal sitting in Abuja has overturned a decision of the Federal Capital Territory High Court that held Fidelity Bank Plc liable in a fundamental rights suit instituted by Michael Kundera.
A three-member panel of the appellate court, led by Justice Adebukola Banjoko, delivered the judgment on September 14, 2026, allowing Fidelity Bank’s appeal and setting aside the finding of liability against the financial institution.
The dispute arose from Suit No. CV/6258/23 filed by Kundera over his arrest and detention between May 15 and 16, 2023. He had alleged that his detention occurred without being charged before a court or granted administrative bail.
The respondents included the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), former EFCC Chairman, Abdulrasheed Bawa, an EFCC officer identified as Calistus, and Fidelity Bank Plc.
In its April 2024 judgment, the FCT High Court, presided over by Justice Peter Kekemeke, held that Kundera’s arrest and detention were unlawful and amounted to a breach of his fundamental rights.
The court consequently ordered the respondents, jointly and severally, to pay Kundera ₦10 million in compensation for the violation, alongside ₦2 million awarded as costs.
The trial court also noted that Kundera, who was reportedly 75 years old at the time, ought not to have been subjected to the treatment complained of. It further held that continued invitations and threats of arrest in connection with a matter that had already been determined went beyond the lawful authority of the respondents.
Kundera, through his counsel, O. Orji, had connected the dispute to a parcel of land at the Foreign Affairs Quarters, which he claimed was lawfully owned by him.
He also contended that the matter was already before the Court of Appeal in Suit No. CA/ABJ/CV/533/2021. Among the reliefs sought were declarations that his arrest and detention violated his rights under Sections 35 and 36 of the 1999 Constitution, an order preventing further invitations or threats of arrest, as well as ₦500 million in exemplary or aggravated damages.
Fidelity Bank, however, challenged the High Court’s decision, arguing that there was no credible evidence linking it to Kundera’s arrest, detention or the alleged violation of his constitutional rights.
The bank told the appellate court that its role was limited to submitting a petition to the EFCC over alleged criminal conduct involving legal entities that had reportedly obtained a ₦100 million loan procurement order for a particular project but allegedly diverted the funds for personal purposes.
According to the bank, Kundera was not the subject of the petition and there was consequently no evidentiary basis for holding Fidelity Bank responsible for the alleged infringement of his fundamental rights.
The bank therefore urged the Court of Appeal to determine whether the trial court was justified in granting reliefs against it in the absence of sufficient evidence establishing its involvement in the alleged violations.
In its judgment, the Court of Appeal agreed with Fidelity Bank’s position, holding that the evidence before the trial court did not establish that the bank had violated Kundera’s fundamental rights.
The appellate panel further held that Kundera had failed to discharge the burden of proving wrongdoing against Fidelity Bank to the standard required to sustain the reliefs granted by the lower court.
The Court of Appeal consequently set aside the finding of liability against Fidelity Bank, effectively exonerating the bank from responsibility for the alleged violation of Kundera’s fundamental rights.
