The Court of Appeal in Abuja has overturned a Federal Capital Territory High Court decision that held Fidelity Bank Plc liable in a fundamental rights case involving Michael Kundera.
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 finding of liability against the bank.
The dispute arose from suit No. CV/6258/23, filed by Kundera following his arrest and detention between May 15 and 16, 2023. He had alleged that his detention violated his fundamental rights because he was neither charged before a court nor 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.
In April 2024, the FCT High Court, presided over by Justice Peter Kekemeke, found that Kundera’s arrest and detention were unlawful and amounted to violations of his fundamental rights. The court ordered the respondents, jointly or severally, to pay ₦10 million in damages and a further ₦2 million as costs.
The High Court also raised concerns about the treatment of Kundera, who was reported to be 75 at the time, and held that continued invitations and threats relating to a matter already decided went beyond the lawful powers of the respondents.
Kundera's case was linked to a dispute involving a parcel of land at the Foreign Affairs Quarters. Through his counsel, O. Orji, he maintained that the property lawfully belonged to him and that related proceedings were before the Court of Appeal in suit No. CA/ABJ/CV/533/2021.
Fidelity Bank, however, challenged the High Court's finding, arguing that there was no credible evidence connecting it to Kundera's arrest, detention or any infringement of his constitutional rights.
The bank maintained that its involvement was limited to a petition submitted to the EFCC concerning allegations that legal entities had diverted funds obtained under a ₦100 million loan procurement arrangement for a specific project.
Fidelity Bank argued that Kundera was not the subject of the petition and that the evidence did not establish a basis for holding the bank responsible for actions taken by law-enforcement authorities.
The Court of Appeal agreed with the bank's position, finding that there was no credible evidence establishing that Fidelity Bank infringed Kundera's fundamental rights.
The appellate court consequently reversed the finding of liability against Fidelity Bank, clearing the bank of responsibility for the alleged infringement.
