Law Simplified Video
Begin with our short Law Simplified video for a concise explanation of this legal topic. Then continue reading for a more detailed discussion below.
Introduction
The freezing or restriction of a bank account can have serious consequences for an account holder. It may prevent access to money, interrupt business activities and create immediate financial difficulties. Where the restriction is imposed without lawful authority, important questions may also arise concerning the constitutional protection of property and the appropriate remedy available to the affected person.
In Access Bank Plc v. Agbasiere (2022) LPELR-58489(CA), the Court of Appeal considered whether the freezing of a customer’s bank account could be challenged through proceedings brought under the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules.
The Facts and the Central Issue
The respondent maintained an account with the appellant bank. The account was frozen or restricted, thereby preventing the respondent from accessing the money in it.
The bank admitted that the account had been frozen or restricted. Its justification was a communication from the police, accompanied by a purported court order directing action to be taken in respect of the account.
The respondent approached the court under the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules, alleging that the restriction of access to the money in the account violated the constitutional protection of property.
The principal question was therefore whether the complaint could properly be pursued as an application for the enforcement of fundamental rights or whether the respondent was required to commence an ordinary civil action.
The Court of Appeal’s Decision
The Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the lower court and held that, in the circumstances of the case, the action was properly brought under the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules.
The Court considered the respondent’s principal complaint to be the alleged unlawful restriction of access to money in the account and the resulting alleged infringement of the constitutional protection afforded to movable property.
In considering the applicable constitutional provision, the Court reproduced Section 44(1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended), which provides:
“No moveable property or any interest in an immovable property shall be taken possession of compulsorily and no right over or interest in any such property shall be acquired compulsorily in any part of Nigeria except in the manner and for the purposes prescribed by law…”
The Court also considered earlier authorities, including Olagunju v. EFCC (2019) LPELR-48461(CA) and GTB Plc v. Adedamola & Ors (2019) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1664) 30 (CA), in determining whether the restriction of a bank account without lawful judicial authority could properly give rise to proceedings for the enforcement of fundamental rights.
Can the Police Directly Freeze a Bank Account?
An important aspect of the decision concerned the role of the police where there is an allegation that funds in a customer’s account may be connected with criminal activity.
The Court recognised that the police may investigate allegations of crime and may take lawful steps in furtherance of an investigation. However, the Court emphasised that investigative powers must be exercised in accordance with due process and the applicable law.
In the circumstances considered by the Court, the documents relied upon by the bank did not establish a valid court order issued by a court of competent jurisdiction. The purported order contained features which the Court found legally defective.
The decision therefore illustrates an important distinction: the existence of a criminal investigation does not, by itself, justify every form of restriction on a customer’s bank account. Any restriction must have a proper legal basis and must comply with the applicable legal requirements.
The General Rule Considered by the Court
The Court of Appeal stated the general position as follows:
“As a general rule, a bank can only legally freeze the account of its customer pursuant to a Court order.”
The statement must, however, be understood in the context of the facts and legal issues before the Court. Questions concerning restrictions on bank accounts may involve different statutory regimes, regulatory powers and factual circumstances. The legality of a particular restriction may therefore depend on the authority relied upon and the applicable law.
When Can the Fundamental Rights Procedure Be Used?
Not every dispute between a bank and its customer should automatically be commenced under the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules.
The availability of the procedure depends substantially on the nature of the principal complaint and the reliefs sought. Where the principal grievance concerns the enforcement of a constitutionally guaranteed right, the Fundamental Rights procedure may be available. On the other hand, where the alleged infringement of a fundamental right is merely incidental to an ordinary contractual or commercial dispute, a regular civil action may be the more appropriate procedure.
In Access Bank Plc v. Agbasiere (supra), the Court considered the respondent’s principal complaint to concern the alleged infringement of his right to access his money, which he claimed constituted movable property protected under Section 44 of the Constitution.
Key Legal Principles
1. Restrictions on Bank Accounts Must Have Lawful Authority
A restriction placed on a customer’s account must be supported by lawful authority and imposed in accordance with the applicable legal requirements.
2. Criminal Investigations Must Follow Due Process
Law-enforcement agencies may investigate allegations of criminal conduct, including allegations concerning funds held in bank accounts. However, investigative powers must be exercised within the limits prescribed by law.
3. The Fundamental Rights Procedure Depends on the Principal Claim
The fact that a dispute has a connection with a bank account or a contractual relationship does not automatically prevent an action from being brought under the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules. The court will consider the substance of the principal complaint and the nature of the reliefs sought.
4. A Restriction Without Lawful Authority May Give Rise to a Legal Remedy
Where a person’s access to money in a bank account is restricted without lawful authority, and the circumstances disclose an infringement of a constitutionally protected right, the affected person may have a basis for seeking legal redress.
Practical Implications
The decision is important to banks, customers, legal practitioners and law-enforcement agencies.
Financial institutions should ensure that any instruction or authority relied upon in restricting a customer’s account has a proper legal basis and is valid on its face. Compliance with an investigative request does not remove the need to act in accordance with the law.
For account holders, the decision demonstrates that the freezing or restriction of an account is not necessarily beyond legal challenge. The appropriate remedy will depend on the facts, the source of the restriction, the legal authority relied upon and the nature of the right alleged to have been infringed.
For legal practitioners, the case also illustrates the importance of carefully identifying the principal complaint before deciding whether to commence proceedings under the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules or through an ordinary civil action.
Conclusion
Access Bank Plc v. Agbasiere (2022) LPELR-58489(CA) provides important guidance on the legal consequences of restricting a customer’s access to funds in a bank account. The decision reinforces the requirement that restrictions affecting access to property must be supported by lawful authority and imposed in accordance with due process.
At the same time, the case should not be understood as meaning that every restriction placed on a bank account automatically amounts to a violation of fundamental rights. The legality of a particular restriction will depend on the authority relied upon, the applicable law and the facts of the individual case.
Where a restriction is imposed without lawful authority and the principal complaint concerns the infringement of a constitutionally protected right, the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules may provide an appropriate avenue for seeking redress.
Disclaimer
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal concerns, consult a qualified legal professional.
If you found this helpful, please share it on social media — it only takes a click.
Leave a Reply