PalmPay cites court order in N750m debit dispute
August 8, 2026 12:36 am
Palmpay Logo
PalmPay Limited has denied allegations by Kudiwave Technologies Limited that it unlawfully debited N750,369,439.04 from the company’s account, insisting that the transfer was carried out in compliance with a subsisting order of the Federal High Court.
Kudiwave, through its solicitor, Tony Eseigbe & Co., had accused the fintech company of unlawfully withdrawing the sum from its account on July 15, 2026, under the narration, “Judicial Adjustment,” weeks after the Federal High Court in Lagos lifted a Post-No-Debit restriction earlier placed on the account.
According to the company, it neither authorised the transfer nor received prior notice of the debit. The solicitor explained that the account had initially been placed under a Post-No-Debit restriction following an order obtained in April 2026 by officers of the Special Fraud Unit, Ikoyi, but argued that the Federal High Court subsequently set aside the restriction before the funds were transferred.
“Kudiwave Technologies Limited said PalmPay Limited unlawfully debited N750,369,439.04 from its account on July 15, 2026, under the narration ‘Judicial Adjustment’,” the statement read. “Kudiwave stated that it never authorised the transfer and was never notified of it.”
The law firm further alleged that the circumstances surrounding the transaction raised questions about possible collusion involving PalmPay, certain officers of the Special Fraud Unit and other financial institutions.
It called for an investigation into how such a substantial sum could have been withdrawn after the court had invalidated the order upon which the original restriction was based.
The allegations came despite PalmPay’s earlier confirmation that it had complied with the court’s directive lifting the Post-No-Debit restriction.
In a letter dated July 22, 2026, addressed to Onwumere & Co., solicitors to Kudiwave, PalmPay confirmed that it had removed the restriction following a ruling delivered by Justice Ibrahim Kala of the Federal High Court, Lagos, on June 29, 2026, in Suit No. FHC/L/CS/795/2026 between the Inspector General of Police, PalmPay Limited and Kudiwave Technologies Limited.
The correspondence, signed by PalmPay’s legal counsel, Caleb Aluya, stated: “Please be informed that, pursuant to the ruling of the Honourable Court delivered by Justice Ibrahim Kala on June 29, 2026, in Suit No. FHC/L/CS/795/2026 – Inspector General of Police v. PalmPay Limited & Kudiwave Technologies Limited, on the Motion on Notice dated June 15, 2026, the restriction placed on your client’s account has been lifted.”
PalmPay also stated that it was represented by counsel during the proceedings and that its appearance was reflected in the court’s records.
The confirmation followed a demand letter from Onwumere & Co., accusing PalmPay of disobeying a valid court order by allegedly maintaining the restriction after the court directed that it be lifted.
The solicitors argued that the continued freezing of the account was unlawful, unconstitutional and amounted to contempt of court.
They warned that unless the restriction was immediately removed, Kudiwave would institute contempt proceedings against PalmPay and seek damages for losses allegedly suffered due to its inability to access the funds.
According to the law firm, the restriction severely disrupted Kudiwave’s operations, prevented it from meeting its financial obligations and exposed it to significant commercial losses.
The lawyers stressed that compliance with court orders was mandatory and binding on all individuals and corporate entities unless overturned by a competent appellate court.
However, responding to the allegations on Friday, PalmPay categorically rejected claims that it unlawfully debited Kudiwave’s account, maintaining that the transaction complained of was carried out pursuant to a valid order of the Federal High Court.
In a statement signed by its Head of Marketing and Communications, Olorunfemi Hanson, the company said the transfer made on July 15, 2026, was executed in compliance with a subsequent order of the Federal High Court in Suit No. FHC/L/CS/795/2026, made on June 29, 2026, directing PalmPay to disclose the account balance and transfer the identified funds to a designated Police Recovery Account.
“The transfer referenced was made on July 15, 2026, in compliance with a subsequent court order of the Federal High Court in Suit No. FHC/L/CS/795/2026, made on June 29, 2026, which directed PalmPay to disclose the account balance and transfer the identified funds to a designated Police Recovery Account.
“At the time the transfer was effected, the court order remained valid and had not been set aside. PalmPay therefore acted in compliance with a binding directive of the Federal High Court,” the statement read.
PalmPay further stated that it neither initiated the transfer on its own nor retained or benefited from the funds.
“PalmPay did not initiate the transfer independently, nor did the company retain or benefit from the funds,” it said.
The fintech firm added that, as a regulated financial institution, it was legally required to comply with valid orders issued by courts of competent jurisdiction.
“As a regulated financial institution, PalmPay is required to comply with all valid orders issued by the courts of competent jurisdiction. We therefore reject any suggestion that PalmPay acted unlawfully in this matter,” the company stated.
PalmPay reaffirmed its commitment to operating in accordance with the law, saying it would continue to cooperate with the relevant authorities and parties as required.
Onozure is a correspondent of The PUNCH on the judiciary beat. She has over a decade experience covering criminal and civil matters from the magistrate to the appellate courts. She’s a graduate of Political Science
All rights reserved. This material, and other digital content on this website, may not be reproduced, published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed in whole or in part without prior express written permission from PUNCH.
Contact: [email protected]