A suit challenging the constitutionality of CBN’s cashless policy was struck out by Justice Akintayo Aluko on the grounds of incompetence, lack of proof, and absence of jurisdiction.
In the suit marked: FHC/L/CS/1730/2019, Victor Onyegbado( the plaintiff) Sought an order of perpetual injunction restraining CBN from implementing the cashless policy, on the grounds that its implementation violated Section 42 (1) (a) (b) of the Constitution.
While delivering judgement on March 31, the judge agreed with the submissions of CBN’s counsel and held that the plaintiff lacked the locus standi to institute the action.
Though the plaintiff claimed that the policy had affected by subjecting him to disability and/or restrictions to which other citizens of Nigeria are not subjected to.
The plaintiff failed to prove before the court how the implementation of CBN’s cashless policy affected him more than other Nigerians.
In the judgement, the court held that
“It is in its case that the cashless policy envisaged in the circular is aimed at reducing the amount of physical cash in the circulation in the economy, to encourage more electronic-based transactions, fight corruption and insecurity in the land, and strengthen the country’s economy amongst others.”
“I have once again examined the circular and the cashless policy prescribed in it. It is obvious that the aims and purpose behind the decision of the defendant accord with the definition given to the phrase ‘good faith’ in the Black’s Law Dictionary.”
“I, therefore, agree with the learned senior counsel for the defendant that the action of the Apex Bank culminating in the issuance of the cashless policy and its implementation can be said to have been done in good faith.”
“Going by the above statutory provisions and having issued the circular dated September 17, 2019, in good faith, the defendant is not answerable to the grievance and claims of the plaintiff and the jurisdiction of this court to entertain the instant claims of the plaintiff is effectively curtailed and given a swipe.”
“Against the background or the foregoing, this issue is resolved in favour of the defendant against the plaintiff.”
“This suit is accordingly struck out on grounds of incompetence, lack of proof, and absence of jurisdiction.” The judge ruled.