Subscribe

Stay informed

Get the day's top headlines delivered to your inbox every morning.

By subscribing, you agree to our Privacy Policy

The Daily Chronicle

Truth in Every Story

twitterfacebookinstagramyoutube

News

  • Politics
  • Business
  • Technology
  • World

Features

  • Opinion
  • Culture
  • Sports
  • Video

Company

  • About Us
  • Contact
  • Careers
  • Advertise

Legal

  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms of Service
  • Cookie Policy
  • Accessibility

© 2026 The Daily Chronicle. All rights reserved.

SitemapRSS Feed
News

Court voids CBN’s takeover of Union Bank, says it unlawful

Justice Chukwujekwu Aneke of the Federal High Court in Lagos held that the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) exceeded its statutory authority by dissolving the board and management of Union

Court voids CBN’s takeover of Union Bank, says it unlawful
Share this article
March 25, 2026byAuthor 18229
3 min read
  •  By Anne Agbi

Justice Chukwujekwu Aneke of the Federal High Court in Lagos held that the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) exceeded its statutory authority by dissolving the board and management of Union Bank of Nigeria Plc, declaring the January 2024 intervention unlawful.

Delivering judgment on Wednesday in Suit No: FHC/L/MISC/1377/2025, the court held that the apex bank’s actions were ultra vires and not in compliance with the provisions of the Banks and Other Financial Institutions Act (BOFIA) 2020.

The suit was filed by Titan Trust Bank Limited, Luxis International DMCC, and Magna International DMCC, who claimed to be the ultimate beneficial owners of Union Bank.

They challenged the CBN’s decision to dissolve the bank’s board, appoint new management, and initiate a recapitalization process that allegedly diluted their shareholding and excluded them from key decisions.

In its judgment, the court nullified the entire regulatory intervention, granting several reliefs in favour of the applicants.

It quashed the CBN’s public announcement dissolving the board and invalidated all actions taken by the regulator-appointed management.

The court also ordered the immediate reinstatement of the former board and management led by Mr. Farouk Mohammed Gumel.

Read Also: Ex-judge, NBA back SAN for stopping Sowore’s courtroom interview

Additionally, Justice Aneke restrained the CBN and other respondents from exercising any powers over the bank’s governance, including restructuring its share capital or altering its ownership structure.

The court further halted the ongoing recapitalisation process and investor selection programme initiated under the CBN-appointed board.

Beyond the question of statutory authority, the court found that the applicants’ fundamental rights were breached.

It held that they were sanctioned without a fair hearing, despite allegations of regulatory infractions arising from a purported special examination of the bank.

The judge noted that the applicants’ shareholding was reduced from 100 per cent to 40 per cent and that they were barred from participating in the recapitalisation without any legal basis, describing the actions as evidence of bad faith.

While the CBN defended its intervention as part of its prudential oversight, citing severe financial distress at the bank—including a negative capital adequacy ratio, a capital shortfall exceeding N224 billion, and a high non-performing loan ratio—the court held that regulatory powers must be exercised strictly within the law.

On jurisdiction, the court ruled that Section 51 of the Banks and Other Financial Institutions Act (BOFIA) does not shield the CBN from judicial review when it acts outside its powers.

It also held that the actions of the CBN-appointed board were subject to review, describing them as agents of the apex bank.

The court dismissed procedural objections raised by the respondents, holding that the relevant rules of court were merely directory and not fatal to the suit.

Justice Aneke further found that the applicants suffered a “continuing injury,” noting they were excluded from the bank’s management and decision-making processes between January 2024 and December 2025, during which significant corporate actions were taken.

On damages, the court held that while the respondents admitted that the applicants invested $190 million in the bank, additional claims could not be granted in the absence of oral evidence.

Tags:Court
Share this article
Author 18229

Related Articles

2027: Oyo APC slams Makinde, Atiku, Obi others over Ibadan opposition summit

2027: Oyo APC slams Makinde, Atiku, Obi others over Ibadan opposition summit

The All Progressives Congress (APC) in Oyo State has dismissed participants at Saturday’s political meeting convened by Governor Seyi Makinde in Ibadan, describing them as unserious actors lacking the capacity

3 minutes ago
Benue will re-elect Alia, detractors working in vain, says Onjeh 

Benue will re-elect Alia, detractors working in vain, says Onjeh 

Former All Progressives Congress (APC) Benue South senatorial candidate, Comrade Daniel Onjeh, has said that the growing wave of attacks against Governor Hyacinta Alia will not alter the political direction

6 minutes ago
Resident doctors suspend planned strike, issue fresh demands on pay, allowances

Resident doctors suspend planned strike, issue fresh demands on pay, allowances

The Nigerian Association of Resident Doctors (NARD) has suspended its planned total and indefinite strike following fresh commitments by the Federal Government on salary payments and welfare issues. Despite the

30 minutes ago
Oyedele, Keyamo move to cut aviation fuel costs, support airlines

Oyedele, Keyamo move to cut aviation fuel costs, support airlines

The Federal Government has stepped up measures to address the rising cost of aviation fuel and the growing pressure on airline operators, as part of broader efforts to stabilise the

31 minutes ago