Facts:

The claimant is customer of the defendant who is a banking institution in Nigeria. The claimant alleged that in January, 2016 the defendant unlawfully placed a debit restriction on its account opened at the Grand Square, Abuja branch of the defendant thus denying it access to the funds in the account. The claimant further stated that after the restriction came to its notice, it made repeated demands and pleas to the defendant to remove the restrictions and allow it access to the account but that the defendant failed, neglected and refused to accede to its demands. The claimant instructed its solicitors to approach the defendant in order to resolve the issue. The solicitors wrote several letters to the defendant requesting that the restrictions be lifted and claimant allowed access to the account.

The defendant failed to remove the restrictions on the claimant’s account. The claimant consequently filed a suit against the defendant at the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja seeking declarations that the defendant lacked the powers to unilaterally place an indefinite restrictions on its account without a valid order of a court of competent jurisdiction, and that the restriction is illegal,
null and void since it was not done in accordance with a valid court order. The claimant also sought orders to compel the defendant to immediately remove the restriction, allow the claimant unhindered access to the funds in the account and to pay damages for the breach of duty and loss suffered as a result of the breach.

After being served with the process, the defendant filed its defence and denied liability. The defendant stated that its action to place debit restrictions on the claimant’s account was as a result of a letter it received from the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) indicating that the claimant was under criminal investigation and that the account be placed on restrictions pending the conclusion of the investigation. The defendant further stated that it acted in compliance with its civic and statutory obligations under extant and relevant laws requiring the defendant to comply with any regulation, circular or directive of the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) and any other regulatory institution and that it received a circular from the CBN authorising banks to establish industry fraud desk in order to ensure that fraud within the banking sector is checkmated. The defendant stated that it is under a duty to assist the EFCC and other agencies of government in carrying out investigations and that it was pursuant to this obligation that it acted on the letter sent to it by the EFCC authorising it to place restrictions on the claimant’s account. Furthermore, the defendant denied liability on the ground that the account opening form of the claimant clearly provides that the operation of the account is subject to the laws of the Federal Republic of Nigeria and that the defendant will not be liable for any loss or damage to customer’s fund where the loss is due to government order, law, levy or moratorium.