The Court of Appeal in Abuja has cleared Fidelity Bank Plc of liability in a fundamental rights case involving Michael Kundera, overturning an earlier judgement of the Abuja Division of the Federal High Court.

A three-member panel led by Justice Adebukola Banjoko delivered the judgment on 14 September 2026, allowing Fidelity Bank’s appeal and overturning the lower court’s finding of liability.

Mr Kundera had filed a suit numbered CV/6258/23 seeking enforcement of his fundamental rights following his arrest and detention between 15 and 16 May 2023. 

He alleged that he was detained without being charged before a court or granted administrative bail, naming the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), former EFCC chairman Abdulrasheed Bawa, an EFCC officer identified as Calistus, and Fidelity Bank Plc as respondents.

In April 2024, the trial court in Abuja held that Mr Kundera’s arrest and detention were unlawful and violated his fundamental rights, and ordered the respondents to pay the complainant ₦10 million for the violation and an additional ₦2 million as costs of the action.

Noting that Mr Kundera, 75, should not have been subjected to such treatment, Justice Peter Kekemeke further held that continued invitations and threats against him over a matter already decided exceeded the lawful bounds of the respondents.

The complainant had linked the dispute to a parcel of land at the Foreign Affairs Quarters, which he claimed lawfully belonged to him. 

He also maintained that the matter was already pending before the Court of Appeal in suit number CA/ABJ/CV/533/2021.

He therefore sought reliefs, including declarations that his arrest and detention violated rights guaranteed under Sections 35 and 36 of the 1999 Constitution, an order restraining further invitations or threats of arrest, and ₦500 million in exemplary or aggravated damages.

Fidelity Bank, which challenged the High Court’s decision, noted that no credible evidence connected the bank to Mr Kundera’s arrest, detention, or the alleged infringement of his constitutional rights.

The bank said its involvement was limited to a petition submitted to the EFCC concerning allegations of criminal conduct by legal entities that obtained a ₦100 million loan procurement order for a specific project but allegedly diverted the funds for personal use. 

It clarified that Mr Kundera was not the subject of the petition.

Fidelity Bank consequently asked the appellate court to determine whether the trial judge had properly exercised his discretion in granting reliefs against the bank without sufficient material evidence establishing its involvement or liability.

In its judgement, the court upheld the bank’s position, noting that no credible evidence before the trial court established that the bank had infringed Mr Kundera’s fundamental rights.