Magistrates Lack Power to Freeze Bank Accounts, Federal High Court Rules

​ABUJA — In a landmark judgment set to reshape the landscape of banking litigation and law enforcement in Nigeria, the Federal High Court has declared that Magistrate Courts lack the constitutional jurisdiction to issue orders freezing bank accounts or imposing “Post-No-Debit” (PND) restrictions.

​Presiding Judge, Justice Binta Nyako, voided a PND order obtained by the Nigeria Police Force through a Magistrate Court, describing the move as a fundamental jurisdictional error. The court held that such orders are the exclusive preserve of High Courts, asserting that any proceeding conducted without the requisite jurisdiction is a “nullity.”

​The “Lifeblood” of Adjudication

​In her ruling, Justice Nyako emphasized that jurisdiction is the “lifeblood” of any judicial process. Without it, she noted, the entire legal structure collapses, regardless of how well the proceedings were conducted.

ADVERTISEMENT

​The court relied heavily on the locus classicus case of Madukolu v. Nkemdilim (1962), where the Supreme Court established that any judgment delivered by a court lacking subject-matter jurisdiction is void ab initio. Justice Nyako maintained that because Magistrate Courts are not empowered by the Constitution or the Banks and Other Financial Institutions Act (BOFIA) to adjudicate on banker-customer relationships, they cannot validly restrict a citizen’s access to their funds.

​Police and “Bankers’ Orders” Under Fire

​The ruling addresses a long-standing trend where law enforcement agencies, particularly the Police, approach Magistrates to obtain “Bankers’ Orders” to freeze accounts during investigations.

​Legal experts have frequently argued that these orders often rely on the repealed Bankers’ Order Act of 1847—a colonial-era law that is no longer part of the Nigerian legal framework. Justice Nyako’s decision reinforces earlier precedents, including the 2020 ruling by Justice Inyang Ekwo, which similarly barred banks from honoring such orders from Magistrates.

​Implications for Banks and Customers

​This judgment serves as a stern warning to commercial banks that continue to comply with Magistrate-backed freezing orders. By law, banks owe a fiduciary duty of care to their customers. Compliance with an invalid court order may now leave financial institutions vulnerable to lawsuits for breach of contract and damages.

​For bank customers, the ruling provides a shield against the “indefinite” freezing of accounts without due process. While agencies like the EFCC and ICPC retain certain statutory powers to freeze accounts under their respective Acts, those powers are still subject to the oversight of a High Court.

​As the news of the ruling spreads, legal analysts expect a surge in applications to discharge similar PND orders currently active in various Magistrate Courts across the federation.