The case we are about to gist you actually happened. We are only paraphrasing it for easy understanding and consumption by our readers. To read the judgment proper, this is the suit no: FHC/L/ CS/2625/2023 – Miss Folashade Molehin V. United Bank for Africa PLC

Introduction

This is a recent decision of the Federal High Court, Lagos Division that borders on enforcement of fundamental human rights and data privacy in Nigeria.

Gist of the Matter

The Applicant* in this case, Ms. Folashade has a Naira savings account with the Respondent*, United Bank for Africa. She was employed to work remotely by a Company, Eraconnekt which is a subsidiary of Bashirat Are Consulting Firm (BACF), a multinational company is United States. She was to be paid $250 (Two Hundred and Fifty US Dollars) as her monthly salary and such was to be paid via WorldRemit or any other digital cross border international money transfer platform such as Western Union etc.

In line with that, she provided her employer with her UBA savings account details for her salary to be paid in that account after conversion of the salary from USD to Naira by WorldRemit or its like.

For her 1^st month, she received a notification from her employer and World Remit that $300 (Three Hundred US Dollars) was transferred to her UBA savings account, however, she did not receive any notification of such from UBA, the Respondent. Upon approaching the bank, she was informed that a domiciliary account was opened for her by the bank and the $300 was credited into that account.

The Applicant was shocked when she found out that the Respondent unilaterally opened an account for her without her consent. The Applicant was not happy with the actions of the Respondent and requested that the domiciliary account that was opened by the bank for her without her consent should be closed. She engaged the services of her lawyer who later wrote to the bank reiterating the position of Ms. Folashade regarding the domiciliary account.

To the Applicant’s dismay, the bank refused to close the domiciliary account even though she was not the one that requested for the account to be opened. Also, the bank failed to respond to Ms. Folashade’s lawyer’s letter. Dissatisfied with the actions of the Bank, Ms. Folashade instructed her lawyer to institute an action against the Bank.

Ms. Folashade’s Claim before the Federal High Court, Lagos

Ms. Folashade’s lawyer commenced the suit at the Federal High Court, Lagos Judicial Division on the 20^th day of December, 2023 by filing an Originating Summons* (a mode of commencing non-contentious civil claims). UBA, the Respondent engaged the services of a Senior Advocate of Nigeria to defend the suit against it. Here we can see that it is not just about a Customer and a Bank dispute, but also a battle between an Advocate and a Senior Advocate (learned silk).

It is the case of the Applicant that the Respondent infringed upon her fundamental human rights to privacy as enshrined in Section 37 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended), hereinafter, referred to as “CFRN” as well as the Nigeria Data Protection Regulation, 2019 (NDPR) (you can read our article on it here).

What Ms Folashade Asked the Court

The Applicant sought for several reliefs against the Respondent some of which are;

1. A declaration that the unilateral opening of account by the Respondent for the Applicant without the Applicant’s consent amount to misuse of the Applicant’s data by the Respondent, hence, an infringement on the Applicant’s right to privacy;
2. An order of the court mandating the Respondent to close the domiciliary account;
3. For the court to award the sum of N20,000,000.00 (Twenty Million Naira) only as general damages* against the Respondent fore breaching her fundamental right to data privacy;
4. The cost of N2,000,000.00 (Two Million Naira) only as cost of instituting the action/suit etc.

What the Bank Argued

The Respondent through its lawyer, the Senior Advocate, filed a Preliminary Objection* (P.O.) challenging the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court to entertain the suit on the basis that it is a banker-customer relationship, therefore, it is a fiduciary claim which is not recognisable or enforceable under the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure), (FREP), therefore, the claim should be instituted in the State High Court not the Federal High Court.

In response to the Preliminary Objection, the lawyer representing the Applicant argued that the crux of the suit borders on infringement of the Applicant’s right to privacy and went ahead to cite several cases that allows an aggrieved party to either bring such claim via the Fundamental Rights Enforcement Procedure or via an action for breach of duty.

What the Federal High Court Stated

Having listened to both sides, the court ruled in favour of Ms. Folashade and held that the court has jurisdiction even though there exist a banker-customer relationship between the Applicant and the Respondent, however, the principal claim is in regards to misuse of personal data of the Applicant by the Respondent. The Respondent used the details of the Applicant’s savings account domiciled with the Respondent in opening a domiciliary account for her without her consent.

The Court rightly held that the scope of NDPR is an extension of the Right to Privacy as contained in Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (FREP) and that the Applicant is free to pursue either a claim for breach of duty or to bring an action under the FREP which she did. Since the Federal High Court has jurisdiction to enforce fundamental human rights and the Applicant being at liberty to choose which cause of action to take and decided to bring a fundamental rights application before the Federal High Court, the court rightly held that it has jurisdiction to proceed and hear the matter on its merit. Hence, the P.O. filed by the Respondent failed.

The Judge proceeded and heard the suit on its merit. Even though the Respondent argued that the domiciliary account was opened for the Applicant without her consent was in her interest because of a policy of the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) and that she would not have been able to access her money if not for the account the Bank unilaterally opened for her.

The Court discountenanced that line of argument and held that even if that was true, the Applicant requested for the account to be closed and the Respondent refused to close said account. Furthermore, the Court also stated that the Bank could have communicated to the Applicant and informed her of the purported CBN’s policy and seek for her consent before going ahead to make use of her data that is in the Bank’s custody in opening an account for her.

Therefore, there is no excuse whatsoever for opening the domiciliary account in the first place, and if there is, the Applicant has asked for the closure of the domiciliary account which the Respondent failed to do so. 

What the Court Granted Ms. Folashade

The Federal High Court, Lagos ruled in favour of the Applicant, Ms. Folashade and granted the following reliefs which she requested for through her lawyer;

1. A Declaration that the unilateral opening of the domiciliary account by the Respondent, UBA, without her consent or prior knowledge was against her right to data privacy as contained in section 37 of the 1999 Constitution;
2. A Declaration that UBA’s inability to obtain her permission before unilaterally opening by processing her data is wrongful and a breach of the Nigeria Data Protection Regulation, 2019;
3. An Order of Court directing the immediate closure of said domiciliary account;
4. The sum of N7,500,000.00 (Seven Million, Five Hundred Thousand Naira) only as general damages; and
5. The sum of N500,000.00 (Five Hundred Thousand Naira) only as the cost of the suit.

Conclusion

Interestingly, just like how Ms. Folashade was the underdog in this scenario, she was also represented by an underdog, an Advocate while the Respondent, UBA, was represented by a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN). They could not escape justice even though they were represented by a Senior Advocate.

Justice prevailed at the end of the day. This goes to show that it does not matter who the party is and his/her/its influence, or the lawyer representing the party, justice will be served. Lady Justice (Justitia) is blindfolded for a reason, it symbolises the impartiality of the law courts.

Although the Applicant won the case and all the reliefs were granted in her favour, however, there is modification to the amount claimed. The court in its wisdom granted the sum of N7,500,000.00 (Seven Million, Five Hundred Thousand Naira) only as damages in favour Ms. Folashade as opposed to the N20,000,000.00 (Twenty Million Naira) only which she originally claimed through her lawyer and the sum of N500,000.00 (Five Hundred Thousand Naira) only as cost of instituting the action as opposed to the N2,000,000.00 (Two Million Naira) only which she originally claimed through her lawyer..

It is pertinent to state that this suit was instituted on the 20^th of December, 2023 and the judgment was given on the 13^th of May, 2024. It took the court less than 5 months to dispense with the case. Justice was not only done, but it was timeously done.

Glossary

“Applicant” applies to a person who files a petition or makes an application; the petitioner; or the person who is applying for a legal remedy to a problem.

“General Damages” they are primarily applicable in personal injury cases. They compensate an injured individual for non-monetary damages that are incurred in a personal injury claim.

“Preliminary Objection” this means a legal argument made at the beginning of a case that, if accepted, would stop the case from moving forward. For example, if someone argues that the court doesn’t have the power to hear the case, that would be a preliminary objection.

“Respondent” This is a person, group, body or organization who responds to an appeal which has been brought before the Court by the Applicant.