The Onikoyi Royal Family has asked the Lagos State High Court to compel Union Bank Plc to release an outstanding N50 million allegedly remaining in its fixed deposit account, alongside accrued interest and N20 million in damages for alleged breach of contract.
The family, through Otunba Abdul Ganiyi Kolawole Onikoyi and Akinola Oyeniyi Fafunwa, is contending that despite a protracted legal battle over the bank’s handling of its funds, Union Bank has failed to honour its latest instruction to transfer the outstanding balance to the family’s account with Keystone Bank.
In a Statement of Claim filed before the court, the claimants alleged that the disputed N50 million formed part of an original N250 million fixed deposit placed with Union Bank on February 5, 2009, at an agreed interest rate of 14.5 per cent per annum.
The claimants are asking the court to determine whether the bank’s alleged refusal to release the money, despite previous court proceedings and subsequent correspondence between the parties, amounts to a breach of contract.
The suit brings into focus a long-running dispute over the management of the royal family’s funds, including earlier unauthorised debits that culminated in proceedings before the Lagos State High Court, the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court.
According to the Statement of Claim, the dispute originated from alleged unauthorised debits of N65 million on July 6, 2009, and N200 million on September 9, 2009, from the family’s funds held by the bank.
The family maintained that the transactions were unlawful and subsequently instituted an action challenging the debits and seeking appropriate judicial intervention.
The claimants stated that the Lagos State High Court, in a judgment delivered on September 27, 2012, granted the reliefs sought in the earlier suit, including a declaration that the disputed N265 million debit was unlawful.
Dissatisfied with the judgment, Union Bank reportedly appealed to the Court of Appeal. However, according to the claimants, the appellate court dismissed the bank’s appeal on January 16, 2018.
The bank subsequently pursued a further appeal before the Supreme Court, which the claimants said was dismissed on March 17, 2025.
Following the Supreme Court decision, the family said it approached Union Bank through its solicitors, requesting compliance with the judgment and the release of the sums due to it.
The claimants alleged that the bank subsequently paid N867,661,484.39 into the family’s Keystone Bank account as part of the judgment sum.
However, they contended that the payment did not resolve the entire dispute because the N50 million balance, together with the interest allegedly accruing on it, remained outstanding.
The family is therefore asking the court to intervene and compel the bank to release the disputed balance.
In its account of subsequent dealings with the bank, the family stated that the first claimant, described in the court process as the sole surviving signatory to the family’s former account, wrote to Union Bank on April 8, 2025.
The letter reportedly requested the account statement and directed the bank to transfer the outstanding balance into an interest-yielding account.
The claimants said further correspondence subsequently passed between the parties and their solicitors concerning the account, the supporting documents required by the bank and the proposed transfer of the funds.
They alleged that, despite complying with the bank’s request for supporting documentation, Union Bank failed to honour a subsequent instruction dated October 27, 2025, directing the transfer of the N50 million to the family’s Keystone Bank account.
The claimants also alleged that a response issued by the bank on June 13, 2025, contained incorrect information concerning the funds in dispute.
They maintained that the continued retention of the money had denied the family access to funds it was entitled to receive and had caused it financial loss.
However, in a separate originating summons filed before the Lagos State High Court, Union Bank has asked the court to determine the legal authority of the parties to operate a temporary account numbered 0133772325, opened in the name of the Onikoyi Royal Family.
The bank named Otunba Abdul Ganiyi Onikoyi, Akinola Oyeniyi Fafunwa and Oba Ibikunle Onikoyi as defendants in the originating summons.
Among the questions submitted for determination is whether the temporary account has become inoperative by operation of law.
Union Bank also raised questions concerning the effect of the deaths of Oba Patrick Onikoyi and Professor Babatunde Fafunwa, who, according to the bank’s court process, had previously provided the necessary authorisation alongside the first defendant in respect of the family’s former current account.
The bank identified the former account as number 0291030028797, which was subsequently assigned NUBAN number 0002561324. It stated that the account became inactive and was closed by operation of law.
Against this background, Union Bank is asking the court to determine whether the first defendant, described in its process as the only surviving signatory to the former account, can independently authorise a transfer from the temporary account without a formal change of mandate.
The bank’s position places the authority to operate the temporary account and the validity of the instructions given to it at the centre of the dispute.
The questions raised in the originating summons are particularly relevant to the parties’ disagreement over the release of the outstanding funds, as the court is being asked to examine the legal status of the account and the authority of those seeking to give instructions on behalf of the royal family.
Beyond the release of the principal sum, the Onikoyi Royal Family is seeking substantial interest on the disputed N50 million.
In its reliefs, the family is asking the court to award interest at 14.5 per cent per annum from September 9, 2009, to November 30, 2025, on the ground that the money remained part of the original fixed deposit and that the agreed interest rate continued to apply.
The claimants argued that the fixed deposit had not been terminated in a manner that extinguished their entitlement to the outstanding balance and that they had been deprived of the use of the funds.
They are also seeking interest at 20 per cent per annum on the N50 million from November 1, 2025, until final payment, in addition to N20 million in damages for the alleged breach of contract and refusal to release the money.
The reliefs, if granted, would expose the bank to a substantial financial liability beyond the principal sum, although the entitlement to the interest rates and the periods claimed remains for the court to determine.
The family’s case is that the outstanding balance should be treated as money due to it under the original deposit arrangement and that the bank should not be permitted to retain the funds after the conclusion of the earlier litigation.
The latest proceedings raise issues concerning the relationship between the earlier judgment over the disputed debits, the outstanding balance claimed by the family, and Union Bank’s position on the authority required to operate the temporary account.
While the claimants are seeking an order compelling the transfer of the N50 million, together with interest and damages, the bank’s originating summons asks the court to clarify the legal status of the temporary account and whether the surviving signatory can validly authorise the transfer without a formal change of mandate.
