Appeal Court Overturns N12m Judgment, Clears Fidelity Bank in Michael Kundera Rights Enforcement Suit

The Court of Appeal in Abuja has set aside the judgment of the Federal Capital Territory High Court which held Fidelity Bank Plc liable in a fundamental rights enforcement case filed by Michael Kundera.

The three-member panel led by Justice Adebukola Banjoko delivered judgment on September 14, 2026, allowing the appeal filed by Fidelity Bank and clearing the bank of any liability.

The matter started from suit number CV/6258/23 filed by Michael Kundera to enforce his fundamental rights over his arrest and detention between May 15 and 16, 2023. He alleged that he was detained without being charged to court or granted administrative bail.

Respondents in the suit were the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, former EFCC Chairman Abdulrasheed Bawa, an EFCC officer identified as Calistus, and Fidelity Bank Plc.

In its April 2024 judgment, the FCT High Court presided over by Justice Peter Kekemeke declared the arrest and detention unlawful and a breach of his fundamental rights. The court ordered the respondents to jointly or severally pay N10 million as damages and N2 million as cost of action.

The trial court also noted that Kundera, who was said to be 75 years old at the time, should not have been subjected to such treatment and held that continued invitations and threats against him over a matter already decided went beyond lawful bounds.

Through his counsel O. Orji, Kundera had linked the issue to a parcel of land at the Foreign Affairs Quarters which he claimed belonged to him. He also said the land matter was already pending before the Court of Appeal in suit number CA/ABJ/CV/533/2021. He sought declarations that his arrest violated Sections 35 and 36 of the 1999 Constitution, an order restraining further invitations or arrest, and N500 million as exemplary damages.

Fidelity Bank appealed the decision, arguing that no credible evidence linked the bank to the arrest, detention or violation of Kundera’s rights.

The bank stated that its role was limited to a petition to the EFCC over alleged criminal conduct by legal entities that obtained a N100 million loan procurement order for a project but allegedly diverted the funds for personal use. The bank maintained that Kundera was not the subject of its petition and there was no basis to hold it liable for rights violation.

The bank asked the appellate court to determine whether the trial judge properly exercised discretion in granting reliefs against it without sufficient evidence.

In its judgment, the Court of Appeal agreed with Fidelity Bank. The panel held that there was no credible evidence before the trial court proving that Fidelity Bank infringed Kundera’s fundamental rights and that Kundera failed to discharge the burden of proof required to justify reliefs against the bank.

The decision effectively reversed the finding of liability against Fidelity Bank and cleared the bank of responsibility in the alleged rights infringement.