TAJ Bank Ltd suffered another system glitch in March this year, leading to unauthorized transfers of a staggering N957.4 million to several accounts in 26 banks and fintech platforms.
This came nearly a year after the bank faced a similar system glitch that moved N139.6 million from its system.
However, in a surprising twist, the bank has withdrawn its case seeking the reversal of the unauthorized debits from the Federal High Court in Abuja.
Nairametrics learnt that the court had earlier declined TAJ Bank’s interim freezing and post-no-debit request against the 26 financial institutions.
According to court documents exclusively reviewed by Nairametrics, TAJ Bank— which eventually discontinued its suit on July 21, 2025—argued that, under the Central Bank of Nigeria’s Regulatory Framework for Banking Verification (BVN) Operations and Watchlist for the Nigerian Banking Industry (2017), the identified institutions were empowered to block, freeze, and reverse back to it the sum of N957,394,438.94 traced to customer accounts.
The bank described the monies as having been illegally debited and “transferred from the accounts of the Plaintiff to the accounts of the customers of the 1-26 Defendants respectively following the system glitch in the Plaintiff’s server.”
Details of the reversal case
In the bank’s suit filed June 11, 2025 (marked FHC/ABJ/CS/1132/2025 and seen by Nairametrics), TAJ Bank approached the court, stating the Plaintiff was severely affected by the effects of the system glitch.
- TAJ Bank accused customers of the 26 financial institutions of taking advantage of the glitch to dissipate its customers’ funds.
- The bank further argued that unless its post-no-debit, freezing, and reversal applications were granted, it would experience “untold hardship and dire financial loss.”
- The bank’s legal team emphasized that the Central Bank of Nigeria Establishment Act grants regulatory oversight over financial institutions in Nigeria and is responsible for ensuring the safety of customer funds.
“An order of this Honourable Court directing the 1st–26th Defendants to comply with the Central Bank Guidelines Nos. BPS/DIR/GEN/CIR/02/004 of 2015, BPS/DIR/GEN/CIR/05/011 of 2018 and the Central Bank of Nigeria’s Regulatory Framework for Banking Verification (BVN) Operations and Watchlist for the Nigerian Banking Industry, October 2017 by blocking or placing ‘No Debit’ restriction on the sum/monies to the extent of the sums illegally received into the respective bank accounts of the 1st–26th Defendants’ customers’ accounts following a system glitch from the Plaintiff’s server on the 9th and 10th day of March, 2025 as listed in the documents marked as EXHIBITS TAJ D1-D8 pending the complete/full refund/reversal,” the bank prayed.
- TAJ Bank argued that relevant authorities and stakeholders have a duty to protect the banking and payment service industry from abuse by “dishonest users,” and to take reasonable steps to prevent damages whenever abuse or fraud is known or reported.
Court proceedings
At the court session before Justice Muhammad Umar on June 27, 2025, TAJ Bank’s lawyer, Rilwanu Idris, Esq., appeared and announced his motion ex parte against the identified financial institutions.
- He contended that the total sum of N957 million was allegedly debited from his client due to the glitch and was allegedly in the custody of the financial institutions.
- He argued that in order to trace and freeze the funds, a court order was necessary to hold the monies pending the determination of the suit.
- He assured the court that TAJ Bank would undertake to ensure no one’s interests were put at risk.
Idris stated, “The money had already been deducted, all the respondents concerned are in business, and if you ask them to produce this money, they will.”
- He stressed that the court had the power to intervene, or else “the money will go.”
Ruling on TAJ Bank’s motion for an interim freezing order, Justice Umar held that “The ex-Parte application(by TAJ Bank) is refused”.
- He rather directed that the financial institutions should be put on notice and TAJ Bank’s processes served accordingly.
- The case was then adjourned to July 21, 2025, for hearing.
- However, at the resumed session, TAJ Bank’s lawyer, T. O. Nworie, informed the court of the bank’s decision to discontinue the matter.
“We want to bring to the notice of this Court that in line with the Rules of this Court, we filed a Notice of Discontinuance, and we want the Court to take notice of that. It was filed on 17th July, 2025,” the lawyer said.
- No further details about the withdrawal decision were given in open court.
- Justice Umar granted the Notice of Discontinuance dated July 17, 2025, thereby striking out TAJ Bank’s matter against the financial institutions.
The 2024 incident
Nairametrics previously reported in August 2024 that the Federal High Court in Abuja, per Justice Peter Lifu, granted an interim freezing order against several accounts at Fair Money Micro-finance Bank Ltd and others.
The order mandated the organizations to reverse N139,630,000 credited to some customers and account holders as a result of a “system glitch” at TAJ Bank Ltd.
The bank’s legal team explained that if all accounts listed in its exhibits (belonging to alleged fraud perpetrators) were not urgently blocked or placed on no-debit restriction and the unlawfully obtained amounts reversed, there would be further dissipation of monies belonging to TAJ Bank’s customers.
Justice Lifu granted the interim request from TAJ Bank while ordering TAJ Bank to undertake to protect or insure the identified fintech platforms against any losses should emerging facts render the interim orders inappropriate.
What This Means
This development highlights the complexities of legal disputes involving banks after system glitches.
While the Federal High Court has authority to preside over such issues, the parties must prove their case before a matter can be concluded.
An Economist, banker, and Consultant on Digital Transformation, Dr Tope Fasoranti, advises that safer banking habits, stronger institutional security frameworks, and deeper collaboration among stakeholders can help financial institutions minimize risks while enabling continued enjoyment of a secure and efficient digital financial system.
What You Should Know
Fraud losses among Nigerian banks reached N52.26 billion from over 70,000 transactions in 2024, according to Nairametrics, citing the Nigeria Interbank Settlement System (NIBSS).
- This was a 4.5-fold increase from the N11.61 billion lost in the same period in 2023, with most cases arising from electronic channels.
- Fraud targeting institutions is often enabled by insider collusion, while fraud against individuals usually succeeds due to negligence or lack of awareness.
- Most fraudsters manipulate individuals into revealing security credentials using social engineering tactics such as scam calls, deceptive messages, malware, and fake websites.
Lol, truth be heated the CTO, the core banking senior officers of Taj bank .
Should be investigated and questioned. Glitch are not created to affect the bank systems .
Glitch affect the core banking software used by the bank which in reality is manufactured by banking software companies.
In conclusion ,oracle , finnacle etc or whatever software company Taj bank uses did not report any glitch or malware as at this year . So it means that the glitch was intentionally created within the bank itself.
I like the application process
May experience saylon