ABUJA: The Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) and the Nigeria Deposit Insurance Corporation (NDIC) have challenged the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court in Abuja to hear a suit jointly filed by Aso Savings & Loans Plc and Union Homes Savings & Loans Plc over the revocation of their operating licences.
CBN’s counsel, Onyeka Ezeah, and NDIC’s lawyer, Abubakar Shehu, raised the objection before Justice Emeka Nwite shortly after the case was called for the defendants to show cause.
Justice Nwite had, on December 29, declined to grant a motion ex parte filed by Aso Savings and Union Homes seeking to restrain the CBN and NDIC from taking further steps following the revocation of their licences.
In his ruling, the judge held that the interest of justice would be better served by placing the defendants on notice to show cause why the reliefs sought should not be granted.
The matter was consequently adjourned to January 5 for the defendants to show cause.
When the case was called on Monday, counsel to the plaintiffs, Joseph Silas, informed the court that the matter was slated for the defendants to show cause.
Silas told the court that the CBN had served the plaintiffs with an affidavit to show cause, a notice of preliminary objection and a counter-affidavit to their originating summons.
He added that the NDIC also served them earlier in the day with its counter-affidavit and a notice of preliminary objection.
The lawyer, however, maintained that the hearing was specifically for the defendants, particularly the NDIC, to show cause why the application should not be granted, insisting that the agency had failed to do so.
Silas argued that although the CBN revoked the licences, the plaintiffs still had a statutory 30-day window to appeal the decision, stressing the need to restrain the NDIC from commencing liquidation pending the determination of the substantive suit.
He contended that allowing liquidation to proceed could irreversibly prejudice his clients if the court eventually finds the CBN’s action unlawful.
He, therefore, urged the court to order parties to maintain the status quo.
Opposing the application, Ezeah described the move as premature, stressing that the issue of jurisdiction must first be resolved.
“Jurisdiction is the lifeblood of a case,” she said, citing the 2022 Supreme Court decision in Waziri v. PDP, which held that jurisdictional issues must be determined before any other application.
Shehu aligned himself with Ezeah’s submissions, insisting that the NDIC acted within its statutory mandate.
He told the court that the NDIC had filed a preliminary objection which was ripe for hearing and urged the court to adjourn to enable the plaintiffs respond.
Responding, Silas argued that while the case was pending, the NDIC was continuing with liquidation processes, urging the court to intervene to preserve the rest.
Shehu countered that once a financial institution’s licence is revoked, the NDIC is empowered by law to take over in the interest of depositors.
Silas maintained that the law allows the plaintiffs 30 days to challenge the revocation, adding that NDIC’s actions were based solely on the CBN’s decision.
He further argued that the application was in the interest of depositors, noting that NDIC’s maximum insured payment of N2 million could not adequately cover large deposits.
Shehu said NDIC’s intervention became necessary because depositors could no longer access their funds, adding that shareholders could seek damages if the plaintiffs eventually succeeded.
Justice Nwite questioned the propriety of making any interim order in the face of pending preliminary objections challenging the court’s jurisdiction.
“I don’t want to embark on an exercise in futility,” the judge said, describing jurisdiction as the threshold of any case.
He adjourned the matter until January 21 for hearing of the preliminary objections.
Aso Savings, Union Homes, Ridhwan Hamza and Ismaila Adamu are listed as first to fourth plaintiffs in the suit marked FHC/ABJ/CS/2776/2025, while the CBN and NDIC are the first and second defendants.
The plaintiffs had sought two reliefs in their ex parte motion, dated December 22 and filed December 23, including restraining the defendants from enforcing the revocation pending the hearing of the motion on notice.
In an affidavit in support, Ridhwan Hamza, a shareholder of Aso Savings, acknowledged operational challenges but accused the CBN of failing to follow statutory procedures.
He alleged that despite progress made to meet capital requirements, the CBN relied on provisions of the Banks and Other Financial Institutions Act (BOFIA) 2020 and its mortgage bank guidelines to revoke the licences.
Hamza further accused the NDIC of attempting to extinguish the plaintiffs’ right of action by commencing liquidation within the statutory appeal window.
