United {Bank} for Africa Plc (UBA) has been dragged earlier than the Federal Excessive Court docket in Lagos over allegations that it secretly opened and operated a “ghost” company account in a buyer’s title.
The swimsuit 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, identification theft, illegal knowledge processing and violation of their constitutional proper to privateness.
The plaintiffs are in search of declaratory and injunctive reliefs, in addition to damages working into billions of naira.
Based on the assertion of declare, EFFDEE Nigeria Restricted has maintained just one reputable 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 mild 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 mentioned to belong to the agency. The plaintiffs additional averred that one of the accounts, Account No. 1023232539, was mentioned to be utterly unknown to them.
Alarmed by the event, the plaintiffs mentioned they performed 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 data.
The corporate mentioned that statements allegedly obtained from the {bank} confirmed that the disputed account carried a gap steadiness 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 tons of of tens of millions of naira had been mentioned 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 identification 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 legislation enforcement motion.
Based on the swimsuit, 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 data of it.
The corporate alleged that UBA unlawfully used confidential company and private banking info obtained from its reputable account to open and function the second account.
It claimed that identities had 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 reputable account in September 2024 on grounds of “incomplete documentation” — a transfer they described as suspicious and indicative of significant inside management failures.
Within the swimsuit, 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 Knowledge 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 below 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 working 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 legal professionals, 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 swimsuit.
On the final listening to, counsel to the {bank}, B. Nwokedi, knowledgeable the court docket that his principal was exterior the nation and requested an adjournment to allow the {bank} correctly defend the matter.