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 earlier judgment of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) High Court.
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 of liability against the financial institution.
The case arose from Suit No. CV/6258/23, filed by Michael Kundera to enforce his fundamental rights following his arrest and detention between May 15 and 16, 2023.
Kundera had alleged that he was arrested and detained without being charged before a court or granted administrative bail.
The respondents in the suit 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 April 2024 judgment, the FCT High Court, presided over by Justice Peter Kekemeke, held that Kundera’s arrest and detention were unlawful and amounted to a violation of his fundamental rights.
The trial court consequently ordered the respondents, jointly or severally, to pay Kundera ₦10 million in damages for the alleged violation, alongside an additional ₦2 million awarded as costs of the action.
The High Court also noted that Kundera was reportedly 75 years old at the time of the incident and expressed concern over the treatment he received.
The court 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 also contended that the matter was already pending before the Court of Appeal in Suit No. CA/ABJ/CV/533/2021.
Among the reliefs sought 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, and ₦500 million in exemplary or aggravated damages.
Fidelity Bank, however, challenged the High Court judgment, arguing that there was no credible evidence linking the bank 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 allegations of criminal conduct involving legal entities that had obtained a ₦100 million loan procurement order for a specific project but were allegedly accused of diverting the funds for personal purposes.
Fidelity Bank maintained that Kundera was not the subject of the petition and argued that there was therefore no sufficient basis for holding the bank responsible for the alleged violation of his fundamental rights.
The bank consequently urged the Court of Appeal to determine whether the trial court had properly exercised its discretion by granting reliefs against it without sufficient evidence establishing its involvement in the alleged infringement.
In its judgment, the Court of Appeal upheld Fidelity Bank’s position, finding that there was no credible evidence before the trial court establishing that the bank had infringed Kundera’s fundamental rights.
The appellate panel further held that Kundera had failed to discharge the burden of proof required to establish wrongdoing on the part of Fidelity Bank or justify the reliefs granted against the bank by the lower court.
The Court of Appeal therefore reversed the finding of liability against Fidelity Bank and cleared the bank of responsibility for the alleged infringement of Kundera’s fundamental rights.
The decision effectively sets aside the portion of the FCT High Court judgment that held Fidelity Bank liable in the matter.
