In a determined transfer to get better a whooping sum of N1, 133, 808, 604. 31 billion, fraudulently eliminated by some prospects, Lotus Bank has dragged 45 banks in Nigeria earlier than a Federal High Court Lagos.
Lotus {bank}, in its movement on discover filed earlier than that courtroom confirmed that the cash was eliminated on July 20, 2024, whereas it skilled system failure named ‘a system glitch’, as a result of a rollback repair carried out on its E-Bills Pay platform.
The {bank} additionally admitted that throughout the ‘system failure’, 718 prospects who made profitable withdrawals and transfers from their accounts knew that they didn’t have the quantities of their accounts with the {bank}.
To salvage the illegal withdrawal brought about as a result of ‘system glitch’, the 45 banks have been dragged earlier than the courtroom by Lotus Bank over the large {financial} woe are: Palmpay Payment Services Ltd; Moniepoint Microfinance Bank Ltd; Opay Digital Services Ltd; Guaranty Trust Bank Ltd; Access Bank Plc; (previously Diamond); Zenith Bank Plc; Payment Service Bank Ltd; Wema Bank Plc; United Bank For Africa Plc; Kuda Microfinance Bank Ltd; Fairmoney Microfinance Bank Ltd and Sterling Bank Ltd.
Others embrace: Stellas Digital Bank Ltd; First Bank Of Nigeria Ltd; Renmoney Microfinance Bank Ltd; Unity Bank Plc; First City Monument Bank Ltd; Beststar Microfinance Bank (Nig) Ltd; Globus Bank Ltd; Carbon Microfinance Bank Ltd; Jaiz Bank Plc; VFD Microfinance Bank Ltd; Premium Trust Investment Ltd; Pagatech Ltd; Polaris Bank Plc; Keystone Bank Ltd; Stanbic-IBTC Bank Plc; Stanbic-IBTC (Ease Wallet) 30. TAJ Bank Ltd 31. Providus Bank Ltd and Fidelity Bank Plc
Others embrace: Union Bank of Nigeria Plc; kegow (Chamsmobile Ltd); Ecobank Nigeria Ltd; Smartcash Payment Service Bank Ltd; Amucha Microfinance Bank Ltd; Sparkle Microfinance Bank Ltd; Kredi Money Microfinance Bank Ltd; Alternative Bank Ltd; Lotus Bank Ltd; Gomoney Inc.; Paystack-titan (Paystack Payments Ltd) and Momo Payment Settlement System.
The go well with in response to Lotus Bank Bank is pursuant to Order 3 Rules 1 6, and 9 of the Federal High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 2019 and underneath the courtroom’s inherent jurisdiction.
It ask the courtroom for the next questions for willpower: “whether or not having regard to the Central Bank of Nigeria Guideline No. BPS FIRGEN/CIR/02/004 of 2015; BPS/FIRGEN/CIR/05/011 of 2018; Section 10.2.2-10.2.4, 10.3, 10.4 of the CBN Regulations, the Ist to Forty fifth Defendants are usually not mandated to position a lien on the sums standing within the respective accounts of the 1st- Forty fifth defendants’ prospects/account holders.
“Whether having regard to the Central Bank of Nigeria Guideline No. BPS/FIRGEN/CIR/02/004 of 2015; BPS/FIRGEN/CIR/05/011 of 2018; significantly Section 10.2.1 of the Regulations, the Plaintiff shouldn’t be entitled to a refund of all of the funds illegally transferred into the respective accounts of the 1st-Forty fifth Defendants’ prospects/account holders within the doc. marked as Exhibit 1 connected herewith and domiciled with the Defendants the place such funds are nonetheless obtainable within the prospects’ accounts
“Whether having regard to the Central Bank of Nigeria Guideline No. BPS/FIRGEN/CIR/02/004 of 2015; BPS/FIRGEN/CIR/05/011 of 2018; Section 10.2.2-10.2.4, 10.3, 10.4 of the CBN Regulations, where the sums in the customers’ accounts are not sufficient to cover the sums illegally transferred, the 1st-45th Defendants are not mandated to place a lien on any of the sums illegally transferred into the accounts of the customers/account holders domiciled with one or more of the Defendants and more fully shown in the document marked as Exhibit 1 attached herewith, until the entire sums are fully recovered and repaid to the Plaintiff.”
The {bank} states that upon the willpower of the above questions, pray the courtroom following reliefs towards the listed banks collectively and severally: “a declaration that by the Central Bank of Nigeria Act 2007, the Central Bank of Nigeria Guideline No. BPS/FIRGEN/CIR/02/004 of 2015; BPS/FIRGEN/CIR/05/011 of 2018; Section 10.2.2 -10.2.4, 10.3, 10.4 of the CBN Regulations, the 1st-Forty fifth Defendants has an obligation and obligation to guard the banking and fee trade from abuse by dishonest customers and to take cheap steps to forestall any damages of the banking and – fee system at any time when any abuse or fraud is inside their data or has been delivered to their consideration.
“A declaration that having regard to the Central Bank of Nigeria Guideline No, BPS/FIRGEN/CIR/02/004 of 2015;
BPS/FIRGEN/CIR/05/011 of 2018: Section 10, 2.2-10.2.4, 10.3, 10.4 of the CBN Regulations, the Plaintiff is entitled to a refund of all of the funds illegally transferred into thefendants prospects/account holders extra totally proven within the doc marked as Exhibit 1 connected herewith the place such funds are nonetheless obtainable within the prospects’ accounts.
“An order directing the 1st-Forty fifth defendants to right away reverse and pay to the Plaintiff the sums wrongfully, illegally and illicitly debited from the Plaintiff and transferred into the 1st-Forty fifth Defendants prospects’ accounts listed in Exhibit 1 within the combination sum of N1,133,808,604.31 (One Billion, One Hundred and Thirty-Three Million, Eight Hundred and Eight Thousand, Six Hundred and Four Naira, Thirty-One Kobo) domiciled with a number of of the 1st-Forty fifth Defendants or any quantity subsequently recovered till the complete sums are totally recovered.
“And such further or other orders as the Court may deem fit to make in the circumstance.”
Lotus Bank supported the movement with 19 paragraphs affidavit deposed to by Gbenga Ojerinde, a Fraud Investigation Officer with the {bank}. The go well with can also be connected with a written tackle and a few documentary reveals.
Some of the banks listed as defendants within the go well with, have filed their responses to go well with.
However, the Presiding Judge, Justice Daniel Osiagor has adjourned the additional listening to of the go well with to December , 2025.
Parts of the aveerments within the affidavit learn: “On twentieth July 2024, the Plaintiff skilled a system glitch as a result of a rollback repair carried out on its E-Bills Pay platform. The mentioned rollback repair was carried out to handle a earlier criticism however led to unintended and sudden behaviour that allowed the Plaintiff’s prospects to provoke transfers to different banks and {financial} establishments with out the accounts of these prospects being debited The consequence was that sure prospects made a number of transfers to account? held with the Defendants in extra of the balances these prospects had of their accounts with the Plaintiff.
“This glitch affected 718 prospects of the Plaintiff who made profitable withdrawals and transfers from their accounts figuring out that they didn’t have of their accounts with the Plaintiff the sums they have been transferring and succeeding in these transfers solely as a result of their accounts weren’t being debited.
“The preliminary {financial} publicity of the Plaintiff from this incident is about N1,133,808,604.31 (One Billion, One Hundred and Thirty-Three Million, Eight Hundred and Eight Thousand, Six Hundred and Four Naira, Thirty one Kobo) Now proven to me marked Exhibit 1 is the schedule offering detailed info of the affected prospects of the Plaintiff, the Refund Amounts and the banks/different {financial} establishments warehousing the funds of the affected prospects.
“The Plaintiff reported the difficulty of the system glitch and the ensuing Erroneously Retained Credits to the Nigeria Inter-Bank Settlement System Plc (NIBSS), which is the Nigeria central change chargeable for the interoperability of the varied gamers within the banking sector, together with banks, cellular service operators, non-banking {financial} establishments, fee terminal suppliers, card acquirers, and many others. And their prospects…..
“…… However, the mentioned beneficiaries weren’t debited by the Plaintiff for the mentioned transactions and in lieu retained the credit score values. Consequently, the Plaintiff is entitled to obtain the worth of the respective Refund Amounts from the accounts of the beneficiaries of the Erroneously Retained Credits.
“I do know that the courts present a treatment the place there’s a fallacious and that an Oder of this Honourable Court is required to treatment the Plaintiff’s scenario to allow the Plaintiff get better the erroneously Retained Credits within the accounts of the affected beneficiaries.
“I also know that the justice of this case demands that the beneficiaries of the” Erroneously Retained Credits are prevented from unjust enrichment within the circumstances of this matter.
“The plaintiff seeks the reliefs sought on this Originating Summons to position restrictions on the mentioned accounts and reverse the Erroneously Retained Credits to the Plaintiff,
“know it’s within the curiosity of justice, fairness and equity that the reliefs sought by the Plaintiff are granted by this Honourable Court.
“I, Gbenga Ojerinde, do solemnly declare that I depose to this affidavit conscientiously believing the same to be true in accordance with the Oaths Act.”
