Court of Appeal Clears Fidelity Bank of Liability in Fundamental Rights Suit
The Court of Appeal in Abuja has set aside the liability imposed on Fidelity Bank Plc by the Federal Capital Territory High Court in a fundamental rights case instituted by Michael Kundera, ruling that there was no credible evidence linking the bank to his arrest, detention or alleged violation of his constitutional rights.
A three-member panel of the appellate court, led by Justice Adebukola Banjoko, delivered the judgment on September 14, 2026, allowing the bank’s appeal and overturning the decision of the lower court.
The case arose from suit number CV/6258/23, filed by Kundera over his arrest and detention between May 15 and 16, 2023.
Kundera had alleged that his arrest and detention were unlawful because he was neither charged before a court nor granted administrative bail during the period in question.
The respondents in the suit included the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), former EFCC Chairman, Abdulrasheed Bawa, an EFCC officer identified as Calistus, and Fidelity Bank Plc.
In its judgment delivered in April 2024, the FCT High Court, presided over by Justice Peter Kekemeke, had held that Kundera’s arrest and detention amounted to a violation of his fundamental rights.
The court consequently ordered the respondents, jointly or severally, to pay Kundera N10 million in compensation for the violation of his rights, in addition to N2 million awarded as costs of the action.
The trial court also took into consideration Kundera’s age, noting that he was reported to be 75 years old at the time of the incident, and held that he should not have been subjected to such treatment.
Justice Kekemeke further held that continued invitations and threats against Kundera over a matter that had already been decided went beyond the lawful bounds of the respondents.
Kundera, through his counsel, O. Orji, had linked the dispute to a parcel of land at the Foreign Affairs Quarters, which he claimed belonged to him lawfully.
He also told the court that the matter was already pending before the Court of Appeal in suit number CA/ABJ/CV/533/2021.
Among the reliefs sought by Kundera were declarations that his arrest and detention breached the fundamental rights guaranteed under Sections 35 and 36 of the 1999 Constitution.
He also sought an order restraining the respondents from further inviting him or threatening him with arrest in connection with the matter, as well as N500 million in exemplary or aggravated damages.
However, Fidelity Bank challenged the High Court’s decision, arguing that the evidence before the court did not establish any connection between the bank and Kundera’s arrest, detention or the alleged infringement of his rights.
The bank maintained that its role in the matter was limited to submitting a petition to the EFCC over alleged criminal conduct involving legal entities that had obtained a N100 million loan procurement order for a specific project but were accused of diverting the funds for personal use.
Fidelity Bank argued that Kundera was not the subject of the petition and that there was no sufficient basis upon which the bank could be held responsible for the actions subsequently taken by the EFCC.
The bank therefore urged the Court of Appeal to determine whether the trial judge was right to grant reliefs against it without sufficient material evidence establishing its involvement in, or responsibility for, the alleged violation of Kundera’s fundamental rights.
In resolving the appeal, the appellate court upheld Fidelity Bank’s position that the evidence before the High Court was insufficient to establish liability against it.
The Court of Appeal found that there was no credible evidence demonstrating that Fidelity Bank had infringed Kundera’s fundamental rights.
The panel further held that Kundera failed to discharge the burden of proof required to establish wrongdoing by the bank or justify the reliefs granted against it.
The appellate court consequently reversed the finding of liability against Fidelity Bank, effectively clearing the financial institution of responsibility for the alleged infringement of Kundera’s constitutional rights.
The decision means that while the High Court’s findings concerning the circumstances of Kundera’s arrest and detention had formed the basis of the original judgment, Fidelity Bank could not be held liable in the absence of evidence establishing its involvement in the alleged violation.
