United {Bank} for Africa Plc (UBA) has been dragged earlier than the Federal Excessive Courtroom in Lagos over allegations that it secretly opened and operated a “ghost” company account in a buyer’s title.
The go well with claims the account moved over ₦5 billion and was additionally used to safe a ₦2 billion mortgage.
In Swimsuit No: FHC/L/CS/775/2025, EFFDEE Nigeria Restricted and its managing director, Fouad Anthony Aquad, accused United {Bank} for Africa, UBA, of breach of contract, negligence, breach of belief, id theft, illegal knowledge processing and violation of their constitutional proper to privateness.
The plaintiffs are looking for declaratory and injunctive reliefs, in addition to damages operating into billions of naira.
In keeping with the assertion of declare, EFFDEE Nigeria Restricted has maintained just one legit company account with UBA since August 4, 2020, and by no means utilized for or authorised the opening of some other account in its title.
The agency avers that the alleged misconduct reportedly got here to gentle in January 2025, when the Federal Inland Income Service (FIRS) contacted the corporate’s managing director throughout a tax investigation and requested statements for 2 UBA accounts stated to belong to the agency. The plaintiffs additional averred that one of the accounts, Account No. 1023232539, was stated to be utterly unknown to them.
Alarmed by the event, the plaintiffs stated they carried out checks and found {that a} second UBA account, described in court docket paperwork as an “unlawful account”, had been opened and operated within the firm’s title for a number of years with out its information.
The corporate stated that statements allegedly obtained from the {bank} confirmed that the disputed account carried a gap stability of ₦2 billion, described as a mortgage, and recorded cumulative transactions exceeding ₦5.2 billion between 2020 and 2022 earlier than being largely drawn down.
Additional transactions allegedly amounting to lots of of thousands and thousands of naira have been stated to have occurred between January 2023 and January 2025.
EFFDEE Nigeria Restricted maintained that none of its administrators utilized for the account, signed any mandate, submitted id paperwork, handed board resolutions, or authorised any mortgage or transaction linked to the account.
The plaintiffs additional alleged that the existence of the account uncovered the managing director to regulation enforcement motion.
In keeping with the go well with, Mr Aquad was invited, detained, fingerprinted, and questioned by the {Economic} and {Financial} Crimes Fee in August and September 2024 over transactions and a ₦2 billion facility allegedly tied to the disputed account, regardless of his insistence that he had no information of it.
The corporate alleged that UBA unlawfully used confidential company and private banking info obtained from its legit account to open and function the second account.
It claimed that identities have been cloned, signatures and company resolutions cast, and necessary Know Your Buyer (KYC) and anti-money laundering checks ignored, permitting the account to function undetected for years.
The plaintiffs additionally alleged that whereas the disputed account was allowed to operate with out restriction, UBA positioned limitations on the corporate’s legit account in September 2024 on grounds of “incomplete documentation” — a transfer they described as suspicious and indicative of significant inner management failures.
Within the go well with, EFFDEE Nigeria Restricted accused the {bank} of breaching a number of legal guidelines and rules, together with the Banks and Different {Financial} Establishments Act, Central {Bank} of Nigeria rules, the Nigeria Information Safety Act 2023, and the Federal Competitors and Client Safety Act.
They additional argued that the {bank}’s actions amounted to an illegal interference with their proper to privateness beneath Part 37 of the Structure.
The plaintiffs are asking the court docket to declare the opening and operation of the disputed account illegal, award damages operating into billions of naira — together with ₦3 billion in aggravated damages — and grant perpetual injunctions restraining the {bank} from additional working the account or utilizing their company and private knowledge.
Additionally they alleged that regardless of repeated letters and a pre-action discover issued by their attorneys, UBA failed to supply a passable clarification or take decisive remedial motion.
UBA Plc has denied the allegations and urged the court docket to dismiss the go well with.
On the final listening to, counsel to the {bank}, B. Nwokedi, knowledgeable the court docket that his principal was outdoors the nation and requested an adjournment to allow the {bank} correctly defend the matter.