Facts:

In early 2024, the Claimant made several attempts to access the funds in her account domiciled with the 1st Defendant but discovered that she could no longer access the account. Upon making inquiries and after several visits to the 1st Defendant’s branch located at No. 63 Usuma Street, opposite Transcorp Hilton Hotel, Maitama, Abuja, she was informed by her Relationship Officer that a Post No Debit (PND) had been placed on her account pursuant to an order of the Magistrate Court sitting at Maraba Gurku, Nasarawa State. Following this development, the Claimant wrote a letter to the 1st Defendant requesting a copy of the said order. In response, the 1st Defendant, by a letter dated 13th March 2024, forwarded a copy of the order to her. The order, obtained at the instance of the 2nd Defendant, directed the 1st Defendant to freeze the Claimant’s account indefinitely, to identify and cause the arrest of the account operator, and to provide the contact of the officer named therein.

The Claimant contends that she was never served with the 2nd Defendant’s application or with any other process in connection with the matter, and that she was not aware of any suit instituted against her before the Chief Magistrate Court of Nasarawa State sitting at Maraba Gurku. She maintains that her account was opened at the 1st Defendant’s Maitama branch in Abuja, where she also resides and conducts her business. Her discovery of the court order only came to light when she realised that her account had been restricted.

By her letter dated 13th March 2024, the Claimant further notified the 1st Defendant that the purported order it relied upon was against a non-juristic person, as the bank’s database contained no account in the name “Paulyn Abhulimen & Co.” She also noted that the order had been improperly obtained from an inferior court without the jurisdiction to make such pronouncement. Despite these representations, the 1st Defendant has refused to lift the PND placed on her account.

The Claimant alleged that the account in question is her business account, which she uses for the daily operations of her law firm, including the payment of staff salaries, procurement of office supplies, and maintenance of office equipment. She asserts that the continuous restriction on her account has subjected her to hardship, embarrassment, and disruption of her business operations, leading to the present suit.