The High Court of Imo State, Owerri Judicial Division, ruled on November 25, 2025, that First Bank of Nigeria Plc unlawfully froze the law firm account of Ikedi Agunkwu, Esq., without a court order, constituting a fundamental breach of the banker-customer contract.
In a 16-page judgment delivered by Hon. Justice I.M. Njaka in Suit No. HOW/571/2023, the court ordered the bank to immediately defreeze account number ……..3861, pay N2 million in general damages, and refrain from future unilateral freezing without judicial backing while affirming that lawyers are now subject to SCUML registration under the Money Laundering (Prevention and Prohibition) Act, 2022. The judgment, which also awarded N500,000 in costs to the plaintiff, balances anti-money laundering imperatives with contractual protections, potentially setting a precedent for similar disputes.
The decision in Ikedi Agunkwu, Esq. v. First Bank of Nigeria Ltd arose from the bank’s alleged overreach in enforcing Know Your Customer (KYC) requirements, spotlighting tensions between the 2022 anti-laundering law and established banking precedents. Justice Njaka distilled the case into four issues, resolving them with a blend of statutory interpretation and equity, emphasizing substantial justice over technicalities.
Ikedi Agunkwu, a legal practitioner called to the Nigerian Bar on November 5, 2009, and founder/principal counsel at Ikedi Agunkwu Chambers, instituted the suit via Writ of Summons and Statement of Claim. He operates the frozen account in his firm’s name as a customer of First Bank, alleging the freeze breached their contractual relationship.
Agunkwu’s evidence, drawn from his Written Statement on Oath dated January 24, 2024, and Further Written Statement dated October 20, 2023, painted a picture of abrupt disruption: on May 5, 2023, at 5:57 p.m., the bank texted his mobile (…..8938), demanding a visit to any branch with his SCUML (Special Control Unit Against Money Laundering) certificate to “update his account and avoid restrictions.” He viewed this as harassment, citing the Court of Appeal’s 2021 ruling in CBN v. NBA & Anor (2021) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1769) 268, which exempted lawyers from SCUML under the repealed Money Laundering (Prohibition) Act, 2011.
Six days later, on May 11, 2023, at 10:30 a.m., while ill and needing funds for pharmaceuticals, Agunkwu presented a cheque at the bank’s Amakohia, Owerri branch. Staff informed him the account was frozen for SCUML non-compliance. The restriction, persisting over 18 months by trial, allegedly crippled his legal practice and consultancy—his sole income sources—causing harassment, embarrassment, disappointment, inconvenience, shock, and mental/psychological stress. He claimed denial of fair hearing and violation of his right to movable property, arguing the 2022 Act does not override the CBN v. NBA precedent, especially with a pending Supreme Court appeal.
First Bank, through DW1 Mr. Longinus Ama Onwu (Head, Non-Financial Transactions), admitted the account and contractual ties but contested the suit’s viability, claiming no juristic entity named “First Bank of Nigeria Plc” exists—only “First Bank of Nigeria Ltd.” The bank framed the May 5 SMS (Exhibit 1) as standard KYC enforcement under the 2022 Act, which includes “legal practitioners and notaries” as designated non-financial businesses (Section 30). It argued the 2011 Act’s repeal (Section 29(1)) renders CBN v. NBA obsolete, imposing duties via EFCC Regulations 2022 and CBN Guidelines 2013.
The bank denied a full freeze, calling it a “restriction” pending compliance, empowered by the account-opening form (Exhibit 7). No criminal complaint or complaint of fraud was lodged with EFCC, as DW1 admitted under cross-examination.
At trial’s close, parties exchanged written addresses. Justice Njaka’s issues and resolutions captured the dispute’s core:
Juristic Personality (Issue 1): Dismissed the bank’s preliminary objection. Citing Registered Trustees, Celestial Church of Christ v. Olufosoye (2008) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1079) 352 and Ojomu v. Ajose (1983) 2 SCNL 238, the court held name suffixes like “Plc” are non-fatal where identity is clear. No confusion arose from Agunkwu’s account operations, the bank’s defense filing, witness testimony, or interchangeable citations in higher courts. “The Defendant cannot approbate and reprobate,” Njaka wrote, invoking N.R.M.A.F.C. v. Johnson (2007) 49 WRN 169 and Obakpolor v. State (1991) 1 NWLR (Pt. 165) 113 to prioritize substantial justice over technicalities. Resolved for plaintiff.
SCUML for Lawyers (Issue 2): Upheld the bank’s position. The 2022 Act (enacted May 12, 2022; Exhibit 8) repeals the 2011 law and designates lawyers for SCUML (Sections 29(1), 30). CBN v. NBA, based on the old Act, is no longer binding (Attorney-General of Bendel State v. Aideyan (1989) 4 NWLR (Pt. 117) 282; Okonkwo v. Okagbue (1994) 9 NWLR (Pt. 368) 301). Legislative amendments do not usurp judicial power (Lakanmi v. Attorney-General (West) (1970) LPELR-SC.58/69); the pending appeal suspends nothing (Section 1(3), 1999 Constitution). Resolved for defendant—lawyers must comply.
Breach via Unilateral Freeze (Issue 3): Found for Agunkwu. Despite KYC duties (Sections 4, 10, 2022 Act), banks lack authority for indefinite freezes without court orders limited to NFIU/EFCC for 72 hours max (Sections 7(6), 7(8)). Proper process: request documents (done via SMS), report deficiencies to SCUML/EFCC, then seek judicial freeze. No fraud, suspicion, or EFCC report existed; the SMS lacked a compliance deadline, making it inadequate notice.
Drawing from Kuda Microfinance Bank Ltd v. Amarachi Kenneth Blessing (CA/EK/48/2024), G.T.B. Plc v. Adedamola (2019) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1664) 30, FBN Plc & Anor v. DKN Investment Ltd & Anor (LPELR-80878(CA), April 9, 2025), Allied Bank (Nig) Ltd v. Akubueze (1997) 6 NWLR (Pt. 509) 374, Ogunbiyi v. Société Générale Bank (Nig) Ltd (1992) 6 NWLR (Pt. 247) 139, Savannah Bank (Nig) Ltd v. Pan Atlantic Shipping & Transport Agencies Ltd (1987) 1 NWLR (Pt. 49) 212, and Fidelity Bank Plc v. Okwuowulu (2013) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1349) 197, Njaka ruled the action breached the core obligation to honor mandates (Joachimson v. Swiss Bank Corp [1921] 3 KB 110), duty of care, and reasonable enforcement. DW1’s admissions—no EFCC complaint, duty to ensure access—undermined the defense. The 18-month ordeal was “oppressive.” Resolved for plaintiff.
Entitlement to Reliefs (Issue 4): Granted with modifications:
(a) Declared contractual relationship exists (admitted).
(b) Declared freeze unlawful breach.
(c) N2 million general damages awarded to Agunkwu (below N500 million claimed; Moses Jwan v. Ecobank (2021) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1785) 449)—for 18+ months’ inconvenience/distress, no proven specifics like lost income/medical costs, but to deter arbitrariness.
(d) Immediate defreezing; Agunkwu granted time for SCUML amid compliance note.
(e) Perpetual injunction against future freezes without court order, except EFCC/NFIU directives or lawful reports.
Costs: N500,000 awarded to Agunkwu.
Agunkwu, appearing in person, secured vindication after self-representation. Agunkwu described the judgment as “a victory for the rule of law.” First Bank’s counsel, J.I. Ogamba Esq. with I.F. Dike, has not commented; an appeal remains possible.
The certified judgment, signed November 25, 2025, by Assistant Chief Registrar Eririogu C.A., is available at the Imo High Court registry.
Leave a Comment