Whether an Action for Breach of Contract Comes Within the Purview of Fundamental Human Rights

CASE TITLE:  UBA PLC V. ASIME (2025) LPELR-82099 (CA)

JUDGMENT DATE: 15TH AUGUST, 2025

PRACTICE AREA: ENFORCEMENT OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS

LEAD JUDGMENT: BOLOUKUROMO MOSES UGO, J.C.A.

SUMMARY OF JUDGMENT:

INTRODUCTION:

This appeal borders on the enforcement of a fundamental right.

FACTS:

This appeal is from the decision of the Federal Capital Territory High Court in Suit No. FCT/HC/GAR/142/2023 as rendered by S. U. Bature J. on the 12th day of July 2023, granting the application of Respondent against his bank, the appellant, for enforcement of his fundamental human rights to own moveable property guaranteed by Section 44 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, which right he claimed was breached when appellant denied him access to his account with her without an order from the Court sanctioning it. The applicant also complained in the same application that as a result of the said restriction of his account by appellant, he suffered untold hardship and was forced to rely on friends and family to sustain himself in England, where he had gone for further studies on the strength of his funds in his said account, until he was finally compelled to return to Nigeria, so his right to dignity of the human person guaranteed by Section 34 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria was breached. For that reason, he also claimed ‘general damages’ in the sum of N150,000,000.00 (One Hundred and Fifty Million Naira) against appellant.

Upon receipt of the application, appellant responded with a Notice of Preliminary Objection to its competence and the jurisdiction of the Court to entertain it, as well as a counter affidavit to the application. In her said Notice of Preliminary Objection, appellant contended that the gravamen of Respondent’s application was about breach of contract by her of their banker/customer relationship, which is a matter not envisaged under Chapter 4 of the 1999 Constitution or the African Charter on Human and People’s Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act, so the Court should strike out the application on grounds of lack of jurisdiction in it to entertain it.

In her counter affidavit to the application, appellant denied infringing respondent’s fundamental right. She rather asserted that respondent committed fraudulent activities on her said account by uploading fictitious information on his Form A for Foreign Exchange; hence, he was put on a ‘watchlist’; hence, as required by Central Bank Regulations, the said watchlist is a database of bank customers identified by their BVNS to have been involved in fraudulent activities. A bank customer enlisted in the watchlist, she said, is prohibited from carrying out banking transactions until he is delisted.

In response, Respondent deposed to a Further Affidavit denying the assertions of appellant. He particularly asserted that appellant never cchannel,alled him or held any conversation with him as alleged. He said, too, that it was he who discovered the restriction of his account and repeatedly tried to reach the appellant via her official Instagram channel, but she merely informed him that she was working on his complaint and it would be resolved soon. He went on to add that appellant is neither a law enforcement agency nor a Court of law but just a private agency; that even law enforcement agencies have no power to freeze bank accounts without first seeking and obtaining an order from a Court of competent jurisdiction to do so; and that appellant, being just a private entity, lacked the power to unilaterally freeze his account without a Court order.

Both parties filed comprehensive written addresses in support of their positions in the affidavits, which processes they subsequently adopted before the trial Judge.

In his ruling of 12/07/2023 on the motion, Bature J. was not persuaded by appellant’s argument of the incompetence of the application and so first dismissed the preliminary objection.

On the merits of the application, he found that the Applicant is therefore entitled to the reliefs sought in the application.

It is equally granted the sum of N30,000,000.00 (Thirty Million Naira) against the Respondent in favor of the applicant as general damages. Dissatisfied with that ruling, appellant launched this appeal.

ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION:

The court considered the following issues:

1. Whether, having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case, the learned trial Judge was right to have assumed jurisdiction to entertain the respondent’s suit under the Fundamental Rights Enforcement Procedure Rules when the cause of action arose from an alleged breach of a contract of banker/customer relationship that exists between the appellant and the respondent.

2. Whether, having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case, the action of the appellant in placing the Bank Verification Number (BVN) of the respondent on the watchlist in compliance with the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN)’s regulations amounts to a valid and extant regulation or amounts to non-compliance with Section 97 of BOFIA 2020 or is an illegality.

3. Whether the learned trial Judge was right in his finding that the appellant unilaterally froze the account of the respondent after having made a determination that the appellant had a bounden duty to ensure that the directives of his regulator, the CBN, are implemented.

4. Whether, having regard to the burden of proof as discharged by the parties and the declaratory relief claimed by the respondents, the learned trial Judge was right to have held that the respondent’s case was proved on the preponderance of evidence and balance of probabilities to be entitled to the reliefs claimed in his originating motion on notice.

5. Whether, having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case as well as the affidavit evidence before the lower Court the learned trial Judge was right to have held that the appellant violated the respondent’s fundamental human rights as guaranteed under Section 34(1) and Section 44(1) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) and Article 14 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights.

6. Whether, having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case as well as the totality of the evidence adduced at the lower Court the learned trial Judge was right to have granted the reliefs sought by the respondent.

DECISION/HELD:

The appeal was allowed.  The Court held that the action of Respondent as constituted before the trial Court was incompetent and that Court was without jurisdiction to entertain it The decision of the Federal Capital Territory High Court as rendered by Bature J. on 12/07/2023 in favour of Respondent was accordingly declared a nullity, set aside and struck out of the trial court.

RATIOS:

• ACTION- COMMENCEMENT OF ACTION: Effect of an action commenced and determined on a wrong procedure and the proper order to be made in respect of same
• CASE LAW- JUDICIAL PRECEDENT/STARE DECISIS: Principles guiding the Court of Appeal in the application of judicial precedent
• CONSTITUTIONAL LAW- RIGHT TO DIGNITY OF PERSON: Whether general damages can be awarded for breach of right to dignity of the human person under Section 34 of the 1999 Constitution
• CONSTITUTIONAL LAW- ENFORCEMENT OF FUNDAMENTAL HUMAN RIGHT(S): Whether the issue of whether a complaint is a fundamental human right issue within the Section 46(1) of Chapter IV of the 1999 Constitution depends solely on how an applicant craftily framed the reliefs
• CONSTITUTIONAL LAW- ENFORCEMENT OF FUNDAMENTAL HUMAN RIGHT(S): Whether an action for breach of contract comes within the purview of Fundamental Human Rights
• CONSTITUTIONAL LAW- ENFORCEMENT OF FUNDAMENTAL HUMAN RIGHT(S): Whether a complaint of breach of banker-customer contractual relationship is a fundamental right issue within the Section 46(1) of Chapter IV of the 1999 Constitution/can be properly commenced under the FREP Rules
• CONSTITUTIONAL LAW- RIGHT TO ACQUIRE AND OWN PROPERTY: Whether monies of customer of a bank deposited with the bank are funds capable of being compulsorily acquired
• DAMAGES- AWARD OF DAMAGES: Position of the law on the award of damages for breach of fundamental right(s)

To read the full judgment or similar judgments, subscribe to Prime or Primsol