site logo

AYOKUNLE V. FIDELITY BANK PLC (2022)

case summary

Court of Appeal (Benin Division)

Before Their Lordships:

  • Oyebisi Ayemi Omoloye JCA (Presided)
  • Biobele A. Georgewill JCA (Read the Lead and Judgment)
  • Frederick Oziakpono Oho JCA

Parties:

Appellant:

  • Mr. Akao Ezekiel Ayokunle

Respondents:

  • Fidelity Bank Plc
  • Commissioner of Police, Edo State
Suit number: CA/B/232//2016

Background

This case revolves around a claim by Mr. Akao Ezekiel Ayokunle against Fidelity Bank Plc and the Commissioner of Police, Edo State. The appellant alleged that he was unlawfully arrested and detained following a misunderstanding regarding an account allegedly linked to fraudulent activities. He argued that his fundamental rights were breached during this process, leading him to file for damages and an injunctive relief against further unlawful actions.

Issues

The central issues raised in this case are:

  1. Whether the appellant's claims against the respondents were substantiated, contrary to the findings of the lower court.
  2. Did the actions of the first respondent in instigating the appellant's arrest constitute unlawful detention and breach of fundamental rights?
  3. Was the police’s action founded on reasonable suspicion, thereby making the arrest lawful?

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the involvement of the first respondent in the appellant’s arrest was instrumental. It concluded that the first respondent misled the police into believing the appellant was involved in the alleged fraud, resulting in a breach of the appellant’s right to personal liberty as guaranteed under Section 35(1) of the Nigerian Constitution.

Court Findings

The Court of Appeal found against the first respondent, highlighting several key points:

  • The appellant was arrested and detained without adequate justification; the police had exceeded their investigative bounds based solely on the bank's misleading representations.
  • The appellant's actions during the detention were compliant, yet he was not informed of any formal charges or offenses against him.
  • The court distinguished between lawful police action based on reasonable suspicion and the unlawful actions taken by the first respondent in instigating the arrest.
  • The evidence demonstrated the absence of a link between the appellant and the account alleged to be fraudulent, a crucial factor consistent with the judiciary's premise regarding unlawful detention.

Conclusion

In light of these findings, the court overturned the lower court's decision, awarding damages for the unlawful arrest and requesting an official public apology from the first respondent. However, the appeal against the Commissioner of Police was dismissed, attributing the police's actions to reasonable suspicion stemming from evidence provided by Fidelity Bank.

Significance

This case is significant because it highlights the responsibilities of financial institutions in handling sensitive allegations. It serves as a reminder that actions taken based on incorrect or misleading information can lead to violations of fundamental rights. The ruling emphasizes the need for due diligence and ethical conduct from corporate entities, especially in their relations with law enforcement agencies, to avoid wrongful actions against individuals.