The Court of Appeal sitting in Abuja has cleared Fidelity Bank Plc of liability in a fundamental rights suit instituted by Michael Kundera, overturning the judgment of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) High Court which had held the bank jointly liable for alleged violations of his rights.
A three-member panel led by Justice Adebukola Banjoko delivered the judgment on September 14, 2026, allowing Fidelity Bank’s appeal and setting aside the findings made against the financial institution by the lower court.
The dispute arose from Suit No. CV/6258/23, filed by Kundera following his arrest and detention between May 15 and 16, 2023. He had alleged that he was detained without being charged before a court or granted administrative bail.
The respondents 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, declared Kundera’s arrest and detention unlawful and held that his fundamental rights had been violated.
The court subsequently ordered the respondents, jointly or severally, to pay Kundera ₦10 million in damages for the alleged violation of his rights, in addition to ₦2 million awarded as costs of the action.
The trial court also noted that Kundera, who was reportedly 75 years old at the time, should not have been subjected to such treatment. It further held that continued invitations and alleged threats against him in connection with a matter that had already been decided went beyond the lawful bounds of the respondents.
Through his counsel, O. Orji, Kundera had connected the dispute to a parcel of land at the Foreign Affairs Quarters, which he claimed belonged to him lawfully. He argued that the matter was already pending before the Court of Appeal in Suit No. CA/ABJ/CV/533/2021.
Among the reliefs sought by Kundera were declarations that his arrest and detention violated rights guaranteed under Sections 35 and 36 of the 1999 Constitution, an order restraining further invitations or threats of arrest, as well as ₦500 million in exemplary or aggravated damages.
Fidelity Bank, however, challenged the decision, maintaining that there was no credible evidence linking it to Kundera’s arrest, detention or any alleged infringement of his constitutional rights.
The bank told the appellate court that its involvement was limited to a petition submitted to the EFCC concerning alleged criminal conduct involving legal entities that had obtained a ₦100 million loan procurement order for a specific project but were accused of diverting the funds for personal purposes.
According to the bank, Kundera was not the subject of the petition, and its submission of the petition could not, without more, establish liability for his subsequent arrest or detention.
Fidelity Bank therefore urged the Court of Appeal to determine whether the trial court was right to grant reliefs against it in the absence of sufficient evidence establishing its involvement in the alleged violation.
In its judgment, the Court of Appeal upheld the bank’s position, finding that there was no credible evidence before the trial court establishing that Fidelity Bank had violated Kundera’s fundamental rights.
The appellate panel further held that Kundera had failed to discharge the burden of proof required to establish wrongdoing by the bank and justify the reliefs granted against it.
The decision