Appeal Court Clears Fidelity Bank of Liability in Fundamental Rights Case

 Appeal Court Clears Fidelity Bank of Liability in Fundamental Rights Case

The Court of Appeal sitting in Abuja has overturned the liability imposed on Fidelity Bank Plc by the Federal Capital Territory High Court in a fundamental rights suit instituted by Michael Kundera, holding that there was no credible evidence linking the bank to the alleged violation 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 lower court’s finding against the financial institution.

The case arose from Suit No. CV/6258/23, filed by Kundera over his arrest and detention between May 15 and 16, 2023. He 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, had declared Kundera’s arrest and detention unlawful and a violation of his fundamental rights.

The trial court ordered the respondents, jointly or severally, to pay Kundera ₦10 million in damages for the alleged violation of his rights and an additional ₦2 million as costs of the action.

The court had also noted that Kundera, who was reportedly 75 years old at the time, ought not to have been subjected to such treatment. It further held that continued invitations and threats against him in connection with a matter that had already been determined exceeded 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 was lawfully his.

He also maintained that the matter was 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.

However, Fidelity Bank challenged the High Court’s decision, arguing that there was no credible evidence establishing any connection between the bank and Kundera’s arrest, detention or the alleged infringement of his constitutional rights.

The bank told the appellate court that its involvement in the matter was limited to a petition submitted to the EFCC over allegations of criminal conduct involving legal entities that had obtained a ₦100 million loan procurement order for a specific project but allegedly diverted the funds for personal purposes.

Fidelity Bank maintained that Kundera was not the subject of the petition and argued that its limited involvement could not provide a legal basis for holding it responsible for the alleged violation of his fundamental rights.

The 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, or liability for, the alleged violations.

In its judgment, the Court of Appeal upheld Fidelity Bank’s position, finding that there was no credible evidence before the trial court demonstrating that the bank had infringed Kundera’s fundamental rights.

The appellate court further held that Kundera failed to discharge the burden of proof required to establish wrongdoing against Fidelity Bank or justify the reliefs granted against the institution.

The Court consequently reversed the finding of liability against Fidelity Bank, effectively clearing the bank of responsibility for the alleged infringement of Kundera’s fundamental rights.

The decision leaves the findings and orders of the lower court against the other respondents to the extent that they were not successfully challenged by Fidelity Bank’s appeal.