Appeal Court Clears Fidelity Bank In Rights Case

Gavel on a wooden desk with court documents, symbolizing a legal judgment.

AFRICAN STOCKS AND FINANCESeptember 25, 2026 at 2:21 PM UTC

TLDR

Nigeria's Appeal Court cleared Fidelity Bank Plc of liability in a fundamental rights case.
The ruling overturned a lower court's judgment that had ordered the bank to pay ₦12 million to Michael Kundera.
Fidelity Bank successfully argued there was no credible evidence linking it to Kundera's arrest or rights infringement.

The Court of Appeal in Abuja has cleared Fidelity Bank Plc of liability in a fundamental rights case, overturning an earlier judgment by the Federal Capital Territory High Court. A three-member panel, led by Justice Adebukola Banjoko, delivered the judgment on September 14, allowing Fidelity Bank’s appeal. The ruling reverses the lower court’s finding of liability against the bank in a suit filed by Michael Kundera.

The case originated from suit number CV/6258/23, filed by Michael Kundera to enforce his fundamental rights following his arrest and detention between May 15 and 16, 2023. Kundera alleged he was detained without being charged or granted administrative bail. The FCT High Court, presided over by Justice Peter Kekemeke, had declared his arrest and detention unlawful and a violation of his rights in its April 2024 judgment.

The lower court had ordered the respondents, including Fidelity Bank, to jointly or severally pay Kundera ₦10 million for the rights violation and an additional ₦2 million as costs. Kundera, reported to be 75 years old at the time, had originally sought ₦500 million in exemplary or aggravated damages. The trial judge also noted that continued invitations and threats against him regarding a previously decided matter exceeded lawful bounds.

Fidelity Bank challenged the High Court’s decision, arguing there was no credible evidence connecting it to Kundera’s arrest, detention, or the alleged infringement of his constitutional rights. The bank maintained its involvement was limited to a petition to the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) concerning alleged criminal conduct by entities that diverted a ₦100 million loan. The Appeal Court upheld the bank’s position, finding no credible evidence that Fidelity Bank infringed Kundera’s rights and that he failed to prove wrongdoing by the bank.

The appellate court’s decision consequently reversed the finding of liability against Fidelity Bank, clearing the bank of responsibility for the alleged infringement. Kundera, through his counsel, had linked the dispute to a parcel of land at the Foreign Affairs Quarters, which he claimed lawfully belonged to him. He also maintained that the land matter was already pending before the Court of Appeal in a separate suit.

Key Takeaways

This ruling by the Court of Appeal underscores the importance of establishing direct culpability in fundamental rights cases, particularly when multiple parties are involved. For financial institutions like Fidelity Bank, the judgment clarifies the scope of their responsibility when reporting suspected criminal activities to law enforcement agencies. The bank's defense hinged on its limited role, asserting that its petition to the EFCC concerned a ₦100 million loan diversion by other entities, not Michael Kundera directly. The Appeal Court's decision to overturn the lower court's judgment suggests that merely being a party that initiated a report to an investigative body does not automatically confer liability for subsequent actions taken by that body, such as arrest and detention, unless a direct link to the rights infringement can be proven. This outcome provides a degree of legal clarity for banks navigating the complex intersection of financial crime reporting and citizens' fundamental rights, reinforcing that the burden of proof lies with the claimant to demonstrate the bank's direct involvement in the alleged rights violation. It also highlights the judiciary's role in scrutinizing evidence to ensure that liability is appropriately assigned, preventing entities from being held responsible without sufficient material connection to the alleged wrongdoing.