Appeal Court Clears Fidelity Bank in Michael Kundera Fundamental Rights Case

A major legal twist has emerged in the fundamental rights case involving Michael Kundera, as the Court of Appeal has overturned the finding of liability against Fidelity Bank Plc and cleared the bank of responsibility for his alleged arrest and detention.

The Court of Appeal in Abuja has cleared Fidelity Bank Plc of liability in Michael Kundera’s fundamental rights case. The appellate court ruled on September 14, 2026, that there was no credible evidence linking the bank to Kundera’s alleged arrest, detention or violation of his constitutional rights.

ABUJA — The Court of Appeal in Abuja has overturned the finding of liability against Fidelity Bank Plc in a fundamental rights case involving Michael Kundera, ruling that there was no credible evidence linking the bank to his alleged unlawful arrest and detention.

A three-member panel led by Justice Adebukola Banjoko delivered the judgment on September 14, 2026, allowing Fidelity Bank’s appeal against the earlier decision of the Federal Capital Territory High Court.

The appellate court consequently cleared the bank of responsibility for the alleged violation of Kundera’s fundamental rights.

How the case started

The case arose from Suit No. CV/6258/23, filed by Kundera to enforce his fundamental rights following his arrest and detention between May 15 and 16, 2023.

Kundera alleged that he had been detained without being charged before a court or 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 Plc.

In April 2024, the FCT High Court, presided over by Justice Peter Kekemeke, held that Kundera’s arrest and detention were unlawful and amounted to a violation of his fundamental rights.

The court ordered the respondents, jointly or severally, to pay Kundera ₦10 million in damages and an additional ₦2 million as costs.

The trial court also noted that Kundera was reportedly 75 years old at the time of the incident.

Justice Kekemeke further held that continued invitations and threats against Kundera over a matter that had already been decided went beyond the lawful powers of the respondents.

Kundera’s claim over disputed property

Through his counsel, O. Orji, Kundera linked the dispute to a parcel of land at the Foreign Affairs Quarters, which he claimed lawfully belonged to him.

He also stated that the dispute was already before the Court of Appeal in Suit No. CA/ABJ/CV/533/2021.

Among other reliefs, Kundera had asked the court to declare that his arrest and detention violated his rights under Sections 35 and 36 of the 1999 Constitution.

He also sought an order restraining further invitations or threats of arrest, as well as ₦500 million in exemplary or aggravated damages.

Why Fidelity Bank appealed

Fidelity Bank challenged the High Court’s decision, arguing that there was no credible evidence connecting it to Kundera’s arrest, detention or alleged violation of his constitutional rights.

The bank told the appellate court that its involvement was limited to a petition submitted to the EFCC over allegations of criminal conduct involving legal entities that had obtained a ₦100 million loan procurement order for a specific project.

According to the bank, the funds were allegedly diverted for personal use.

Fidelity Bank maintained that Kundera was not the subject of the petition. It therefore argued that there was no legal basis for holding the bank responsible for the alleged violation of his fundamental rights.

The bank consequently asked the Court of Appeal to determine whether the trial judge had properly exercised his discretion by granting reliefs against the bank without sufficient evidence establishing its involvement or liability.

Court of Appeal clears Fidelity Bank

The Court of Appeal upheld Fidelity Bank’s position.

The panel found that there was no credible evidence before the trial court showing that the bank had infringed Kundera’s fundamental rights.

The appellate court also held that Kundera had failed to discharge the burden of proof required to establish wrongdoing by Fidelity Bank.

As a result, the Court of Appeal reversed the finding of liability against Fidelity Bank and cleared the bank of responsibility for the alleged infringement.

The judgment therefore changes the position of Fidelity Bank in the case, while the earlier findings of the High Court concerning the other respondents are distinct from the appellate court’s determination on the bank’s liability.