The Supreme Court of Nigeria has ruled in favour of Fidelity Bank Plc in the long-running legal dispute between the bank and Sagecom Concepts Limited, bringing final closure to a case that has lingered in Nigeria’s financial system for over two decades.
In a ruling delivered on Monday, December 15, 2025, the apex court granted key consequential reliefs sought by Fidelity Bank in a motion dated October 8, 2025, while declining others.
Specifically, the Supreme Court ordered that the judgment debt be paid in Naira, and that interest be applied at a rate of 19.5% per annum, rather than the 19.5% daily compounded interest earlier awarded by the High Court.
The court also ruled that the applicable exchange rate for conversion should be the rate prevailing on the date of the High Court judgment, not the rate at the date of payment, relying on its earlier decision in Anibaba v. Dana Airlines.
However, the court declined Fidelity Bank’s request to fix the judgment sum at N30.20 billion and to expressly apply interest to that figure, leaving the final computation to follow the clarified parameters set out in the ruling.
What this means
The decision significantly reduces the bank’s potential liability compared to earlier market speculation.
With interest now limited to a simple annual rate and the exchange rate fixed as of the High Court judgment date, the Supreme Court’s clarification removes the uncertainty created by the earlier daily compounding interest order.
Background to the case
The case originated from a legacy transaction involving the defunct FSB International Bank, which merged with Fidelity Bank in 2005.
In 2002, FSB extended a $3m credit facility to G. Cappa Plc, secured with a mortgage on a property located in Ikoyi, Lagos.
Following an alleged default, G. Cappa instituted legal action at the Federal High Court, Lagos, seeking to restrain the bank from selling the mortgaged property.
In its judgment, the Federal High Court held that the bank, as legal mortgagee, was entitled to sell the leased interest in the property, which it subsequently sold to Sagecom Concepts Limited in 2011.
However, the court declined to grant vacant possession and directed that the issue be determined by the Lagos State High Court.
Despite the sale, G. Cappa remained in possession of the property and continued collecting rents.
In response, Sagecom instituted an action at the Lagos State High Court in 2011 against both G. Cappa and the bank, seeking damages for breach of contract and possession of the property. Sagecom’s claims were largely based on liquidated damages calculated as unpaid rents on the apartments, plus interest.
In 2018, the Lagos State High Court awarded judgment in favour of Sagecom, a decision that was subsequently challenged up to the Supreme Court.
Fidelity Bank’s position prior to this ruling
In May 2025, Fidelity Bank confirmed the existence of the Supreme Court judgment, but disputed reports suggesting that the bank had been ordered to pay N225bn in damages.
The bank stated that, based on its computation, the settlement figure stood at about N14bn using exchange rates applicable when the cause of action arose.
It also noted that following the Supreme Court’s January 2025 decision in Anibaba v. Dana Airlines, foreign currency judgment debts are to be converted to naira using the exchange rate at the date of the trial court’s judgment.
Applying the 2018 exchange rate, the bank estimated that the liability would be just under N30.7 billion, payable primarily by G. Cappa, with contributions from the bank.
Fidelity Bank subsequently applied to the Supreme Court for clarification on the applicable exchange rate and interest computation requests that have now been substantially upheld by the court.
Market and industry reaction
Fidelity Bank’s share price has remained relatively stable, reflecting sustained investor confidence.
Even in November, when the broader market lost over N6 trillion in value, Fidelity Bank gained 0.53%, taking its year-to-date return to 9%. The stock also rose 0.27% midday on Monday.
Industry analysts say the ruling removes a long-standing legal overhang and provides greater clarity for investors and other stakeholders regarding the bank’s contingent liabilities.
