i =
| =
d IN THE FEDERAL HIGH COURT OF NIGERIA a
&@ N OS JUDICIAL DIVI: =
HOLDEN AT LAGOS 3
ON FRIDAY THE 6™ DAY OF MAY, 2022 =
P, THE HONOURAI =
ay
IT NO:
BETWEEN:
MR CHIEBUKA NWORAH a APPLICANT
AND
UNITED BANK FOR AFRICA PLC ses RESPONDENT
te ~~
JUDG M ENT Gee
By his originating application dated 21/10/2021 filed the
the Applicant commenced this suit against the
same date,
Respondent seeking for the enforcement of his fundamental
human rights allegedly violated by the Respondent.
As shown in the statement attached to the application, the
Applicant is praying for the following reliefs:
one oun (ar)
ni ai arrete
ica Cou
DATE:.(@) A Declaration that the Respondent violated
the data privacy right of the Applicant as
enshrined in Section 37 of the Constitution by
unilaterally opening a new domiciliary
account number 2190320230 without the
pint
consent of the Applicant. A Be
(ii)A Declaration that as a data controller, the
Respondent's failure to obtain the Applicant’s
consent before processing his data, that is, by
unilaterally opening a new domiciliary account
number 2190320230 is a breach of the
provisions of the Nigeria Data Protection
CERTIFIED TRUE COPE
Regulation 2019 (NDPR), as issued by the
National Information Technology Development
Agency (NITDA)
(iii) A Declaration that as a financial institution,
NWAGWU Cc. ‘NN
aN om
HART
is
Dare:.the Respondent's failure to protect the
privacy and confidentiality of the Applicant’s
information, and the act of imposing a second
domiciliary account number 2190320230 on
CERTIFIED rey Cope
the Applicant is a violation of the Central
Bank of Nigeria Consumer Protection
Regulation (“the CBN Regulation”), as issued
by the Consumer Protection Department of
the Central Bank of Nigeria in a circular
dated 20 December 2019. 4,
(iv) An Order of the Honourable Court directing
the said sum of Four Hundred and Fifty
United States Dollars ( US$450) to be paid into
to the Applicant's first domiciliary account
number 3002971242 and for the immediate
closure of the domiciliary account number
nmaote C.N.N (MR)
ui
HIRE TUE oe,
vs
bare:.» (v)
(vi)
Wii)
2190320230, which the Respondent opened
without the consent of the Applicant.
An Order of this Honourable Court awarding
the sum of twenty Million Naira (20,000,00),
as damages against the Respondent for the
violation of the Applicant’s fundamental and
data privacy rights. = Ae
An Order of this Honourable Court awarding
the sum of Two Million Naira (N2,000,000)
against the Respondent as cost of this action.
And for such further or other Orders as the
Honourable Court may deem fit to make in
the circumstance.
CERTIFIED TRUE Cop
The application is founded on eleven (11) grounds and
supported by affidavit of twenty one (21) paragraphs to which
copies of letter of confirmation of account of the Applicant dated
eoranes Sa (AR)
E COPY
rata a Gh
Dares |
4CERTIFIED TRUE COP?
6/10/2020, transaction receipt confirming payment of the sum of
US$450 (Four Hundred and Fifty US Dollars) into the first
Domiciliary Account of the Applicant, electronic text message
dated 19/3/2021 received by the Applicant indicating that a new
domiciliary account had been opened for him, electronic copy of
credit alert of 21/12/2020 received by the Applicant indicating
that payment in the sum of US$250 (Two Hundred and Fifty US
Dollars) was earlier made into his first Domiciliary Account,
letters dated 26/4/2021 and 30/6/2021 written by the
Applicant’s Solicitors to the Respondent demanding for immediate
transfer of the sum US$450 (450 US Dollars) back to his first
domiciliary account and for an immediate closure of the Second
Domiciliary Account were attached as exhibits CNE1, CNE2, CNE3,
CNE4, CNES (a) and CNE5 (b) respectively. Ae
The Respondent joined issue with the Applicant by filing a
NWAGWU
Ns
nin RLFIED Thue cog?
rasa orricee 5
Dare.CERTIFIED TRUE COPY
written address in opposition to the application on the
9/11/2021. The Applicant however filed his reply on point of law
against the Respondent's written address on the 16/11/2021.
The matter came up for hearing on the 14/2/2022 when
counsel adopted their written submissions and rendered
adumbration in urging the court to hold in their favour.
UM. Y CT Al OR THE PART,
The case of the Applicant is that he is a customer to the
Respondent, a limited liability company registered under the
Companies and Allied Matters Act and licenced by the apex Bank
to carry on banking business in Nigeria. FZ»
The Applicant opened a domiciliary account with the
Respondent in Ukpor, Anambra State with account number
3002971242 which was confirmed by the Respondent on
6/10/2020 vide exhibit CNE1.
The Applicant expected the sum of USD450 to be paid into the
oo ‘
NWAGWU C.N.N (MR)
CERTIFIED TRU; col
Pincirat execute Sch
‘FEDERAL i
HA i tout
Dare. weCERTIFIED TRUE cor’
account by one Philip Onuoha whom he had earlier furnished with
the account details. Upon confirmation by Philip Onuoha that he
had paid the money into the Applicant’s account, he waited to
receive confirmation from the Respondent showing that the
amount had indeed been lodged into the account all to no avail.
The Applicant however received a message from the
Respondent on the 19/3/2021 revealing to him that a new
domiciliary account with account number 2190320230 had been
opened in his name and that the said sum of USD 450 was lodged
in the new account. 65 tas
The Applicant visited the marina Lagos Head office of the
Respondent where it was confirmed that indeed the new
Domiciliary account was opened in the name of the Applicant
where the said sum was lodged.
The Respondent did not provide any reasonable explanation
or justification for its action when the Applicant made further
Nwaci bs
CNN
RAD Tae oe
EDERAL Wi FICER:
is
Dare.geared TRUE COE
inquiry to know the reason behind the bank’s decision to open a
domiciliary account in his name without his consent.
. The Applicant maintained that upon his insistence to know
the reason behind the opening of a new account in his name, the
Respondent finally disclosed that the new account was opened in
compliance with the CBN circular of 5/3/2021 regarding “Naira 4
Dollar Scheme” and that Banks were asked to set up domiciliary
accounts for customers who do not have domiciliary accounts,
Ass bg2%
It is the case of the Applicant that his first domiciliary account
was active and operative and as at the 21/12/2020, the account
was credited with the sum of USD 250 as shown in exhibit CNE4.
He maintained that he was neither informed of the need to
open a second domiciliary account for him nor his consent sought
for in opening the new account by the Respondent,
The Applicant reiterated that the Respondent used hispersonal details which he provided while setting up his first
domiciliary account and unilaterally created a second account he
never requested for at any point in time. CERTIFIED TRUE CoP
The Applicant contended that he knew as a fact that the CBN
circular of 5/3/2021 on “Naira 4 Dollar Scheme” did not in any
way empower Deposit Money Banks or International Money
Transfer Operators to arbitrarily open accounts for customers for
the purpose of taking advantage of the Scheme. sz v
wor
It is the case of the Applicant that the action of the
Respondent has compromised his personal data thereby exposing
him to data breaches and potential misuse of the new account
created by the Respondent without his knowledge.
He claims to have been put in enormous mental stress and
embarrassment in the wake of the negligent action of the
Respondent.
The Applicant wrote two letters to the Respondent on the
Nwacwy 7 ;
Wi
SEnrirten rave ele?
tf
AMO Sate’
aa
inayatCERTIFIED TRUE tor
26/4/2021 and 30/6/2021 demanding for an immediate transfer
of the sum of USD 450 back to his first domiciliary account and for
the closure of the second domiciliary account which the
Respondent failed and neglected to accede. The Applicant
maintained that the second domiciliary account remain active and
operative.
The Applicant said he had to file this action on the conviction
that the judiciary is the last hope of the common man. Refer to
paragraphs 2 through 19 of the affidavit in support of the
application and exhibits CNE1 through CNE5. jc
ee
ISSUE FO! ER) Hl
The relevant and germane issue for determination is:
“whether the action of the Respondent
constitute an infringement of fundamental
rights of the Applicant provided in SectionreRTIeD RUE coe
Counsel to the Applicant submitted that the right to
privacy of data is a data protection right which is subsumed
in the right to privacy guaranteed under section 37 of the
constitution which embodies the protection of data privacy.
Counsel submitted that the Applicant’s information was
supplied to the Respondent solely for the purpose of all
transactions that arise from the use of the first domiciliary
account and that his personal information is subject to data
protection laws. Counsel argued that same was used in a
manner inconsistent with the purpose for which it was
supplied and without the consent of the Applicant thereby
constituting a breach of the Applicant’s right to privacy. (fs
Relying on the provision of the Nigerian Data protection
Regulation 2019 (NDPR) issued by the National Information
Technology Development Agency (NITDA) (not supplied), Counsel
called the attention of the Court to article 1.1 of the Regulation on
NWAGWU CNN (MP) o
oGEREFED rae
raga Scwhe
agar) TUE
the objectives of NDPR which are to safeguard the rights of
natural persons to data privacy as well as prevention of
manipulation of personal data. Counsel called the attention of the
Court to article 2.2 of the Regulation (NDPR) which place a duty
on financial institutions as data controllers to obtain the consent
s
of data subjects before processing their data. AEG
Counsel argued that the failure of a data controller to obtain
the consent of data subjects like the Applicant means that they
have contravened the provision of the NDPR and that such data
controller will be liable to the concerned data subject.
Counsel submitted that the unauthorised opening of a
second USD domiciliary account without the consent of the
Applicant constitutes a breach of his right to the protection
of his personal data by the Respondent.
Counsel emphasized that the purpose for which the
Applicant's personal data at the disposal of the Respondent
crea! Cn. ~~ 2
Nv
nin etme core?
ORC curve
ination & ortlcteaggre THEE tar
was meant for, is only to be used for the purpose of all
transactions that result from the use of the first domiciliary
account and not to be exploited by the Respondent in setting
up a second domiciliary account. & CEH
The leaned counsel called the attention of the court to
the provisions of the CBN Consumer Protection Regulation
Department of the CBN in a circular dated 20/12/2019 (not
supplied) which in its Articles 5.1.7, 5.4.1 and 5.4.2 provide
that Banks are not to impose any product, service or channel
on consumers, that financial institutions have a duty to
obtain written consent of consumers to collect and process
their personal data for specific purpose and provide them
with the option to withdraw the consent at anytime. Counsel
contended that financial institutions that fail to comply with
the CBN regulations are liable to various sanctions and fines.
ae C.N.N (MR
sae
é
bare.‘o
ae EP
Itis his argument that the Respondent neither informed
the Applicant of any need for a second domiciliary account to
be-opened for him nor seek for his consent or approval but
simply used his personal data/details which he provided in
the course of setting up the first domiciliary account and
unilaterally opened a second account without consulting
him. . a 1
Counsel placed reliance on plethora of cases. He called
the attention of the court to the cases of Nwali v. ESBIEC
(2014) LPELR -23682 (CA), Incorporated Trustees of
Digital Lawyers Initiative & Ors v. NIMC (unreported)
CA (IB/2020, page 19 and Emerging Market
Telecommunication Service Ltd v. Godfrey Nya Eneye
(2018) LPELR 46193 (CA).
The Respondent did not deny or controvert the claims
of the Applicant, however counsel to the Respondent
= *
4 (MR)
ED
|g ae nh
CareycERTIFLED TRUE wee
submitted that the name under which the Respondent was
sued is unknown to law. Counsel argued that United Bank
for' Africa sued by the Applicant is not a juristic person and
that having a non-juristic person as a party is not a
<=
misnomer and that same cannot be amended. Asean
He urged the Court to therefore strike out this suit for
that reason. He placed reliance on the cases of Attorney
General of Federation v. All Nigeria Peoples Party
(2003)12 SCM 1 at 12, Searle v. Dove (1964) 2 ALL ER
307, Admin of the Estate of Gen Sanni Abacha v. Eke -
Spiff & Ors (2009) 3 SCM, Njemanze v. Shell B.P Port
Harcourt (1966) 1 ANLR 8 at 10, Agbonmagbe Bank Ltd
v. G.B. Olivant Ltd & Anor (1961) ALL NLR 116, Usuah v.
G.0.C. Nig Ltd & Ors (2012) LPELR - 7913 (CA), World
Mission Agency Inc. v. Sodeinde & Anor (2012) LPELR -
NMAGWU C.N.N (MR)
RTIFIED TRUE COPY
vi an, opricee
Me
Dares. agearirted TRUE COR
19738, (CA) and Anemene & Anor v. Oblanyide & Ors
(2006) LPELR - 11635 (CA). PEgyy
' The learned counsel for the Applicant however drew the
attention of the court to the fact that the Respondent was served
with the originating application and acknowledged the receipt of
same, briefed a counsel to enter appearance and defend the suit on
its behalf. Counsel stressed that there is no doubt or any confusion
as to the fact that the Respondent sued in this suit whose address
where it was served is at 57 Marina, Lagos is United Bank for
Africa Plc,
Counsel submitted that the mere fact that the suffix “Plc” was
not inserted in the name of the Respondent which is innocuous
omission, doesn’t derogate the identity of the Respondent.
He submitted that the omission in the description as to the
name of the Respondent is a misnomer which does not affect the
understanding as to the party referred to in the suit and such a
nwacwi a. a
WU CNN (ME
Ory tapse ee
Dare. aCERTIFIED TRUE COR
mistake which is a misnomer cannot vitiate the validity of the
proceedings. Counsel called the attention of the Court to the cases
of Benjami N. Njoku v. United African Company Foods (1999)
12 NWLR (pt. 632) 559, Regd Trustees of the Airline
Operators of Nigeria v. NAMA (2014) 8 NWLR (pt. 1408),
Omisore & Anor v. Aregbesola & Ors (2015) 15 NWLR (Pt.
1482) P. 234-235, Egolum v. Obasanjo (2004) 1 WRN 87 and
Nishiza wawza Ltd v. Strichand Jethwani (1984) 12 SC at 285 -
286. ee
On the objection of the Respondent against the suit on the
ground that the Applicant sued a non-juristic person, I hold the
conside: ed view that the failure of tls Applicant to add the suffix
“Plc” to the name of the Respondent is a mere misnomer which
cannot vitiate the proceedings.
The Respondent knew well that it is being described and
referred to in the proceedings and so there is no case of mistaken
m ae of 7
seer EMM ae)
184 co
f sth ta eycgnryen TRUE COR
identity. The respondent even went to the extent of briefing a
counsel who wrote a letter dated 16/11/2021 to the Applicant's
counsel stating that the second unsolicited domiciliary account
was a result of system glitch. Refer to paragraph 6 of the affidavit
of fact dated 17/11/2021 deposed to by one Lucia Oboni, one of
the legal practitioners of the Applicant.
The Apex court in the case of the Registered Trustees of the
Airline operators of Nigeria v. NAMA (2014) LPELR -
a
22372(SC) p. 21, paras A-C held thus: PSE
“ let me state emphatically here that when
both parties are quite familiar with the
identity envisaged in a writ of summons and
could not have been misled or have any real
doubt or misgiving as to the identity of the
person suing or being sued, then there can
be no problem of mistaken identity to justify
Nwacwe al .
NWAGWU CNN (MR/ CERTIFIED TRUE CORE
/ a striking out of the action. A misnomer that
a will vitiate the proceedings would be such
that will cause reasonable doubt as to the
identity of the person intending to be sued.”
By the provisions of order 9 rule 14 (2) of the extant Civil
Procedure Rules of this Court which becomes applicable by the
provision of Order XV rule 4 of the FREP Rules, 2009, this court is
empowered to at any stage of the proceedings either upon or
without the application of either party and on such terms as may
appear just order that the name of any party improperly joined be
struck out and that the name of any party who ought to have been
joined or whose presence before the court is necessary to
effectually and completely adjudicate upon and settle the question
involved in the proceedings be added. : ae
CERTIFIED TRUE copy
TIVE OFFICER
kt
a
loon leh 8
[es CNN (MR)I
CERTIFIED TRUE Cort
Coming from the foregoing, I hold the view that the objection
of the Respondent against the suit on the ground of suing a non-
juristic person is misplaced and overruled.
The “United Bank for Africa Plc” is the party being sued as
the Respondent in this suit and accordingly the suffix “Plc” is
ordered to be added to the name of the Respondent. (En
Itis of note that the Respondent did not controvert or deny
the claims of the Applicant by filing a counter affidavit.
The law is settled that where depositions on material facts in
an affidavit in support of an application are not denied by the
adverse party by filing a counter affidavit, such facts not denied in
the affidavit in support of the application remain the correct
position and the court can act on them if they are not moonshine.
Those facts are deemed admitted by the Respondent and
require no further proof. See Chief of Naval Staff Abuja & Ors v.
Archibong & Anor (2020) LPELR 51845 (CA) p. 13, paras B-C,
NWAGWO CNN (MR)
NV.
CERTIFIED Fa
PRINCIPAL NE Sock
SO ASRGUINE Sie
iter ageas
20
4Fayose v. EFCC & Anor (2018) LPELR - 51545- (CA) p. 21,
ee CERTIFIED TRUECOPY AS,
. | have examined the affidavit evidence and documentary
exhibits of the Applicant. The Applicant seem clearly to have made
a good case against the Respondent. The Applicant seem
obviously to be on firm ground both by the established facts in
support of his claims and in law as contained in his counsel’s
submission. It is already established that the second domiciliary
account was unsolicited, unapproved and opened by the
Respondent without the requisite authority and consent of the
Applicant. It is established that the Respondent as a financial
institution in control of the Applicant’s data intruded into the
personal data and information of the customer unilaterally
without his consent, knowledge and approval, processed the
unsolicited second domiciliary account and unlawfully transferred
or intercepted the Applicant’s fund from his lawful account into
oe 2
IWAGHY CNN (mR)
a
ning Es arpcte
a iy aethe illegal account without his consent. The action of the
Respondent has no justification in law and same constitute a
violation of the Applicant's right to privacy in section 37 of the
Constitution. CERTIFIED TRUE Core
In its bid and effort at interpreting the term “privacy of
citizens” as provided in Section 37 of the Constitution, the
appellate court in Nwali v. EBSIEC & Ors (2014) LPELR - 23682
(CA) pp. 27-29, para E held as follows: Ep
“It is glaring that there is nothing in the
phrase “privacy of Citizens” or in the entire
text of section 37 of the Constitution and the
Constitution as a whole suggesting or
compelling a restricted interpretation of the
phrase. As couched in such general terms,
unless interpreted literally, extensively and
expansively, providing the details of thepenieled TRUECORY
citizen’s privacy that is protected therein, the
Phrase will be meaningless and sterile. Every
provision of the constitution was made with
the intendment of realizing a particular
object. Therefore it cannot be presumed that
any clause in the constitution is intended to be
without effect ... where the constitution states
a word or phrase generally or without any
limiting words, it is obvious that it intends
that the word or phrase should have general
meaning and application, unless other
provisions in the constitution state or suggest
the contrary. If there are no other provisions
of the constitution requiring or suggesting the
contrary, the Court must apply the word or
phrase generally, and will have no power to
GU CH
SERTiFiEo rau te)
fi Eka ecUTive pct
23CERTIELED TRUE COR
restrict its application to specific situations.
For the above reasons, I interpret the phrase
“privacy of Citizens” generally, liberally and
expansively to include privacy of citizen’s
body, life, person, thought, belief, conscience,
feelings, views, decisions (including his plans
and choices), desires, health, relationships,
character, material possessions, family life,
activities et cetera”. &,, cee
Coming from the foregoing, I hold the considered view that,
by its action and act of using the personal data and information of
the Applicant at its disposal to open the unsolicited second
domiciliary account in the name of the Applicant without his
knowledge, approval and consent, the Respondent has breached
his right to privacy which has to do with his right to decide, to
choose, plan or desire the Second domiciliary account, Exhibits
ma
NYAGWO C.N.N (mR) aCNES(a) and (b) are letters the Applicant wrote to the
Respondent on the 26/4/2021 and 30/6/2021 which were duly
received and acknowledged. CERTIFIED TRUE core
The Applicant demanded in the letters that the Respondent
should transfer his money from the unwarranted account back to
his lawful account and then close the unsolicited account.
The Respondent however waited will 16/11/2021, after this
suit was already initiated before writing to the Applicant's
counsel claiming that the second account was opened as a result
of a system glitch and that the said account has been closed and
his money moved to the existing domiciliary account. S ~
ber
Apart from the failure of the Respondent to attach the
statement of account and banking documents showing that
indeed the Applicant's funds have been transferred or moved to
his legal account and that the illegal account has been closed, the
letter does not suggest that the Bank regret its unlawful intrusion
NWAGWU C.N.N (MR) 25
CERTIFIED TRUE COPY
PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER
FEDERAL Wich COURT
IKOFy Laas
pare: one]CERTIFIED TRUE CORY
into the personal data and information of the Applicant as same
does not reflect any apology on the part of the bank.
. The content of the letter of the Respondent's counsel dated
16/11/2021 is a further confirmation establishing the bank’s
violation of the Applicant’s right to privacy provided in Section
37 of the Constitution. | agree with the Applicant that he is
entitled to compensation in terms of damages for the
Respondent’s wrongful, unjustified, unlawful and unwarranted
breach and infraction of his constitutional right to privacy.
To this end, I hold that the lone issue in this Judgment is
resolved in favour of the Applicant against the Respondent. There
is merit in the case of the Applicant. Reliefs 2 and 3 on the
originating application are strictly not fundamental right claims
and they are seen to be subsumed in relief 1 and_are therefore
SSE) -G I
declined.
=r a
NACHE CN (mR)
SERriFiED rave copy
vine RSEGUTINE Dreicen
AL Mion Ct
‘nots aoe:f cERTIRED TRUE CORY
| Consequently, reliefs 1 and 4 are hereby granted. With
, Ci respect to relief 5, I award the sum of N2 million Naira (two
million Naira) and N500,000 (five hundred thousand naira) with
respect to relief 6 in favour of the Applicant against the
Respondent as compensation for the unlawful violation of his
fundamental rights and cost of litigation incurred by the Applicant
respectively. I award the sum of One Hundred Thousand Naira
(N100,000) only as cost of action in favour of the Applicant
against the Respondent.
Judgment read and delivered in the open court.
asc
HON JUSTICE AKINTAYO ALUKO
JUDGE
6/5/2022.
PARTIES =
Absent NWAGWO c. |
ERTIFIED rae’ (MA)
| EE oe
COUNSEL are:
1. Chukwunonso E. Azih, Esq
With Lucia 0. Oboni, Esq for the Applicant.
2‘CERTIFIED TRUE COR
2. H.B. Williams, Esq for the Respondent.
bE
HON. JUSTICE AKINTAYO ALUKO
JUDGE
6/5/2022.
CERTIFIED TRUE COP
NWAGWU C.N.N (MR)
HFIE iE Y
PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE. OFFICER
FEDERAL ign COURT
os
are:
oe 2 d oGsss 7 Os)
3 ils Ber:
28