Fidelity Bank Wrongfully Froze Customer’s Account - Court of Appeal Affirms High Court Judgment

The Court of Appeal has affirmed that Fidelity Bank Ghana wrongfully froze the accounts of its customer, Francis H. Abraham, after finding that the bank breached its contractual and legal obligations by refusing to release the accounts despite a clear court order directing it to do so.

The judgment, delivered on June 11, 2026, in the case of Mr. Francis H. Abraham v Fidelity Bank Ghana Ltd [Civil Appeal No. RPC/245/2018], was delivered by a panel comprising Justice Bernasko Essah JA (Presiding), Justice Dorgu JA and Justice E. Senyo Amedahe JA.

The court, while allowing the bank’s appeal in part, upheld the central finding of the High Court that Fidelity Bank’s continued restriction of Mr. Abraham’s accounts amounted to a breach of contract and negligence.

The dispute arose from a matrimonial case between Mr. Abraham and his wife over proceeds from the sale of property they jointly owned. About $130,000 from the sale proceeds had been deposited into Mr. Abraham’s dollar account with Fidelity Bank at its A&C Mall branch in East Legon.

Mrs. Abraham, who was not a customer of Fidelity Bank, applied for an injunction in the matrimonial proceedings to prevent her husband from accessing the funds. Fidelity Bank was not a party to that case. However, after being served with the writ and injunction application, the bank froze Mr. Abraham’s cedi and dollar accounts on its own initiative, despite there being no court order directing it to do so.

On June 6, 2018, the High Court ordered that 50 per cent of the disputed $130,000 be paid to Mrs. Abraham and further directed that the bank should “no longer hold on to any account of Respondent from being accessed by him.”

Despite the order, Fidelity Bank continued to restrict access to the accounts while relying on subsequent applications for stay of proceedings, judicial review and suspension filed in the matrimonial matter. Its application seeking “further directions” from the court was dismissed.

The accounts remained frozen until January 2021, when Mr. and Mrs. Abraham settled the dispute through a consent judgment under which Mr. Abraham paid his wife $80,000.

During the period of the freeze, cheques issued by Mr. Abraham were dishonoured, including one issued to his lawyer for legal fees. Mr. Abraham subsequently sued Fidelity Bank for breach of contract, negligence and defamation.

The High Court ruled in his favour, describing the bank’s conduct as a “reckless voyage” in which it had assumed “the role of knight in shining armour.” The court awarded Mr. Abraham GH¢200,000 in general damages for breach of contract and negligence, GH¢200,000 for defamation, GH¢400,000 in exemplary damages, interest on the disputed $130,000, and GH¢75,000 in costs. Fidelity Bank appealed against the decision.

In the lead opinion of the Court of Appeal, Justice E. Senyo Amedahe held that the bank had no legal basis to continue freezing the accounts once the High Court had issued a clear order directing that Mr. Abraham be allowed access. The court held that a bank cannot disregard a valid court order because it believes another party’s pending applications may affect the outcome of the dispute.

The Court of Appeal further held that service of a writ and an application for an injunction, without more, did not legally prevent Fidelity Bank from allowing its customer to operate his account. According to the court, the bank’s continued refusal to release the funds amounted to an unwarranted interference with Mr. Abraham’s rights as a customer and constituted both breach of contract and negligence. Justice Bernasko Essah JA, in a concurring opinion, agreed with the outcome but drew a distinction between the bank’s conduct before and after the High Court order. She held that the initial decision to freeze the accounts before any court order was “legally arguable and prudentially defensible” because the bank was dealing with disputed funds subject to ongoing litigation. However, she found that the bank’s refusal to release the accounts after the June 6, 2018 order could not be justified.

In the lead judgment, the Court stressed that court orders must be obeyed unless they are stayed, varied or set aside, and that a bank cannot substitute its own assessment of pending litigation for the express directions of a court. 

However, the Court of Appeal overturned the High Court’s award for defamation, holding that Mr. Abraham failed to prove publication, which is an essential element of the claim. The court found that although a cheque issued to Mr. Abraham’s lawyer had been dishonoured, the lawyer already knew the account was frozen and no new defamatory information had been communicated. The court therefore set aside the GH¢200,000 defamation award.

While affirming liability against Fidelity Bank, the Court of Appeal reduced the damages awarded. The GH¢200,000 general damages for breach of contract and negligence was reduced to GH¢100,000, while exemplary damages were reduced from GH¢400,000 to GH¢200,000. The court also held that interest should not be calculated on the entire $130,000. Instead, Fidelity Bank was ordered to pay interest on $65,000, representing Mr. Abraham’s share of the disputed funds under the June 6, 2018 order, from that date until January 12, 2021, at the prevailing commercial rate for US dollar deposits in New York.

The Court of Appeal’s decision reinforces the principle that banks must respect and comply with valid court orders and cannot assume the role of the court by independently deciding how pending litigation should affect a customer’s banking relationship.