Ondo Court Dismisses UBA Appeal, Upholds N9million Damages Over Wrongful Restriction Of Customer’s Account
The judge held that although a bank was required to comply with valid court orders, it also had a responsibility to establish that the account being restricted belonged to the person identified in the relevant proceedings.
The Ondo State High Court sitting in Okitipupa has dismissed an appeal by United Bank for Africa (UBA) Plc challenging a ₦9 million damages award against it for negligence and breach of its duty of care to a customer whose account was restricted for more than six months.
The court upheld the judgment of the Okitipupa Chief Magistrate Court, which had awarded ₦9 million in general damages and ₦60,000 in costs to the customer, Mr Felix Oyeneyin, over the bank’s handling of a garnishee order that led to the restriction of his account.
In a judgment delivered on October 13, 2026, in appeal number HOK/9A/2025, Justice L.B. Ologun ruled that UBA had failed to exercise reasonable care and diligence before restricting Oyeneyin’s account and had not acted promptly after he complained about the restriction.
The judge held that although a bank was required to comply with valid court orders, it also had a responsibility to establish that the account being restricted belonged to the person identified in the relevant proceedings.
The dispute arose after Oyeneyin, who maintained an account at UBA’s Okitipupa branch, discovered in January 2023 that he could no longer access his funds.
According to the court documents, the bank told him that a lien, or post-no-debit restriction, had been placed on his account pursuant to a garnishee order issued by a Lagos Magistrate Court.
Oyeneyin challenged the restriction, maintaining that he did not know the judgment creditor and had never conducted any transaction with him. He also argued that the garnishee order did not contain his account number or address and lacked other identifying particulars connecting him to the judgment debtor.
Despite his complaint, the restriction remained in place until August 2, 2023, more than six months after he first raised the issue with the bank.
UBA challenged the trial court’s judgment, arguing that it had merely complied with a valid garnishee order issued by a court of competent jurisdiction and therefore could not be held negligent for obeying it.
The bank also argued that a letter written by Oyeneyin’s solicitor amounted to an admission that he was the person involved in the garnishee proceedings. It further contended that the damages awarded against it were excessive.
However, Justice Ologun rejected the bank’s argument that compliance with the court order was sufficient to absolve it of responsibility for the restriction.
“The issue is not about compliance with a valid order of court but about ensuring that a customer that is affected by the order of court is the one whose account is being restricted,” the judge held.
He noted that the garnishee order served on UBA contained only the name “Felix Oyeneyin” without an account number or other identifying particulars linking the order to the customer’s account.
The judge also pointed to the testimony of the bank’s sole witness, who admitted under cross-examination that the order did not contain Oyeneyin’s account number.
According to the judgment, a prudent bank would have sought further information to verify the identity of the judgment debtor before restricting the customer’s funds.
“A blanket obedience of court order without due diligence in this circumstance, apparently fractured the hallowed contractual relationship between a bank and its customers,” Justice Ologun stated.
He added that a reasonable assessment of the order should have prompted the bank to request the account number of the alleged judgment debtor or inform Oyeneyin about the development affecting his account.
The court held that the bank’s failure to exercise due diligence contributed to an avoidable error.
Justice Ologun further examined how UBA handled the customer’s complaint after he discovered the restriction.
The judgment noted that Oyeneyin’s evidence that he spent time at the bank’s branch from 9am to 2pm seeking an explanation was not controverted. His complaint that he neither knew nor owed money to the judgment creditor was also not challenged.
Rather than resolve the matter promptly, the bank reportedly instructed him to travel from Okitipupa to Lagos to address the problem.
The judge held that a prudent bank, upon receiving such a complaint, should have acted swiftly, particularly because the garnishee order did not contain the customer’s account number.
“Instead of the Appellant which owes the Respondent a duty of reasonable care and skill in the operation of the Respondent's account to act with promptness, show care and concern, it merely informed the Respondent to go to Lagos all the way from Okitipupa to have the problem sorted out. Thus, treating him with levity and subjecting him to hardship,” the judge said.
The court also faulted the bank for failing to establish that it had complied with the part of the garnishee order requiring it to file an affidavit to show cause within 14 days of service.
Justice Ologun said timely compliance would have enabled the issuing court to consider the matter on the scheduled return date of March 3, 2023.
Instead, the restriction was not lifted until August 2, 2023.
The judge said UBA’s failure to produce the affidavit to show cause justified the trial court’s reliance on Section 167(d) of the Evidence Act, 2011, which permits the court to presume that evidence withheld by a party would be unfavourable to that party.
On the bank’s reliance on the solicitor’s letter as evidence that Oyeneyin was the judgment debtor, Justice Ologun held that the document had to be read as a whole and could not, by itself, conclusively establish that the customer was the person involved in the garnishee proceedings.
The judge also referred to established legal principles requiring banks to exercise reasonable care and skill in managing customers’ accounts.
Citing the Supreme Court decision in Agbanelo v. UBN Ltd (2000), the judgment reiterated that a bank’s duty of care extends across its banking operations and includes properly interpreting and acting on customers’ instructions.
The court also relied on previous decisions, including GTB Plc v. Yunusa (2024), in considering the standard of diligence expected of a bank when implementing a garnishee order.
Having resolved the issues against UBA, Justice Ologun ruled that the appeal lacked merit.
“In conclusion, I find no merit in this appeal and is accordingly dismissed. The judgment of the trial court delivered on the 29th September, 2025 is hereby affirmed,” the judge held.
The ruling leaves in place the original award of ₦9 million in general damages and ₦60,000 in costs against the bank.
UBA was represented by Sanmi Owoeye, while Solomon Tunya, alongside E. E. Ojubulu and B. J. Jolowo, represented Oyeneyin in the appeal.
The judgment was delivered on October 13, 2026, and a certified true copy was issued by the High Court of Justice in Okitipupa on October 14, 2026.
