The court specifically blamed the Independent Corrupt Practice Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC) for freezing a bank account of a firm without obtaining a valid court order
A Federal High Court sitting in Lagos on Wednesday, January 26, 2022, pronounced that no executive agency of government with prosecutorial powers has powers to place a Post No Debit (PND) on any bank account without a valid court order.
A high court judge, Justice Peter Lifu made the pronouncement while delivering judgment in a suit filed by a firm, Efoba Construction and Engineering Services Limited against the ICPC and Zenith Bank Plc.
For sometimes Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) and Independent Corrupt Practice Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC) have been in the habit of freezing accounts of individuals and groups with obtaining any court order.
The court specifically blamed the Independent Corrupt Practice Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC) for freezing a bank account of a firm without obtaining a valid court order.
The judge upheld the arguments of the plaintiff’s counsel Victor Opara SAN that restricting the firm’s access to Account No: 1011301207 without a court order amounted to “a gross and brazen violation of the Applicant’s Fundamental Right to own, acquire and possess property.
In the January 25 judgment obtained on Wednesday, the court further awarded cost of N50, 000 against the ICPC and Zenith.
The plaintiff had, through Okpara, sued the defendants in a suit numbered FHC L/CS/1796/2020, for placing a lien on its bank account without a valid court order.
It prayed the court for several reliefs against the defendants, including: “a declaration that the compulsory taking possession of/forfeiture, acquisition of its right over or interest in monies vested in its bank account maintained with the second respondent with Account No: 1011301207 including but not limited to placing restrictions on the Applicant’s Bank Account without any extant order of court violated its Fundamental Right.
“An order setting aside the purported compulsory acquisition of monies vested in the Applicant and deposited with the 2nd Respondent.
“An order directing the first respondent to de-acquire the monies in the applicant’s Bank Account maintained with the second respondent…”
Both defendants in their counter-affidavit prayed the court to dismiss the suit against them.
The ICPC in its 21 paragraphs counter-affidavit deposed to by Douglas Oditan, prayed the court to dismiss the suit on the ground, among others, of want of jurisdiction.
While Zenith Bank in its 18 paragraphs counter-affidavit deposed to by Eyituoyo Prosper Mogbeyi, and filed and argued by it’s lawyer, Ademola Obayomi, informed the court that it only acted on ICPC’s directives.
Delivering Judgment in the suit, Justice Lifu held: “It is hereby declared that the Post No Debit restriction placed on the applicant’s Account No: 1011301207 by the second respondent on the instruction of the first Respondent without a valid court order from a court of competent jurisdiction duly sought and obtained, is a violation of the fundamental right of the Applicant guaranteed by Chapter IV of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended) on the right to own and possess property.
“The restriction placed on Account No: 1011301207 belonging to the Applicant by the second respondent sequel to the ‘orders’ of the 1st Respondent as contained in a letter dated 7th of October 2019 is hereby set aside forthwith.
“The second respondent is hereby restrained from further placing any restrictions in whatever manner on the Applicant’s accounts domiciled with it except by the direct and express order of a court of competent jurisdiction specifically made for that purpose.
“Considering all the disappointments, denials of access to account and monies legitimately owned by the Applicant coupled with the psychological and physical trauma associated or occasioned by such brazen recklessness of the second respondent Bank, a punitive damages of N5 million, is hereby awarded against the respondents severally and jointly but in favour of the applicant.
“A cost of N50, 000. is hereby awarded as cost of this action against the Respondents”.
POLITICS: 2023 Presidency: Aide reveals why Tinubu travelled to London
