The Supreme Court has delivered a landmark judgment in favour of Fidelity Bank Plc, effectively bringing to an end a protracted legal battle with Sagecom Concepts Limited that has spanned more than two decades and drawn sustained attention within Nigeria’s financial and legal circles.
In a unanimous decision delivered on Friday, a five-member panel of the apex court led by Justice Lawal Garba upheld Fidelity Bank’s appeal, marking a significant turning point in a case that has its roots in legacy banking transactions dating back to the early 2000s. The ruling represents a major legal victory for the lender and provides long-sought clarity on the extent of its financial obligations in the dispute.
The decision followed a motion filed by Fidelity Bank on October 8, 2025, in which the bank requested the Supreme Court to issue consequential orders clarifying key aspects of the judgment debt. Specifically, the bank asked the court to direct that the judgment sum be settled in Nigerian naira, rather than a foreign currency equivalent, and that the applicable interest rate be 19.5 per cent per annum, as opposed to the previously ordered 19.5 per cent compounded on a daily basis.
Fidelity Bank also urged the court to determine that the appropriate exchange rate for any currency conversion should be the rate prevailing on the date of the High Court’s judgment, rather than the rate applicable at the time of payment. This request was anchored on the Supreme Court’s earlier precedent in Anibaba v. Dana Airlines. In addition, the bank sought judicial confirmation that the total judgment debt stood at ₦30.19 billion, with interest accruing at 19.5 per cent per annum until full liquidation of the sum.
In a ruling delivered by Justice Adamu Jauro, the Supreme Court granted the bank’s first three prayers but declined to accede to the requests relating to the specific computation of the judgment sum and the continued accrual of interest on the stated amount. As a result, the court affirmed that Fidelity Bank is to settle the judgment debt in naira, apply a simple annual interest rate of 19.5 per cent rather than a daily compounded rate, and use the exchange rate in force at the time of the High Court judgment.
This clarification significantly reduces the bank’s potential exposure and overturns earlier interpretations that suggested a much heavier financial burden. The ruling also aligns with the Supreme Court’s established jurisprudence on exchange rate application, reinforcing legal consistency and predictability.
The dispute traces its origins to a 2002 credit facility extended to G. Cappa Plc and the subsequent legal actions connected to the enforcement of collateral. Fidelity Bank became involved in the matter following its 2005 merger with FSB International Bank, which was the original party to the transaction. Over the years, the case evolved into a complex legal contest, generating widespread speculation—particularly claims in some quarters that the bank faced a liability of up to ₦225 billion.
With this judgment, the Supreme Court has firmly dispelled those speculations, confirming a substantially lower liability and validating the bank’s long-held position on the proper computation of the debt. Analysts note that the ruling not only brings finality to the litigation but also underscores the importance of judicial clarity in high-stakes commercial disputes.
Throughout the pendency of the case, Fidelity Bank’s market performance has remained relatively stable, a development observers attribute to investor confidence in the institution’s governance standards, risk management framework, and overall financial resilience. Industry experts believe the outcome reinforces the bank’s reputation for prudence and transparency, while also highlighting the strength of its internal controls.
When contacted for comments, representatives of Fidelity Bank declined to speak in detail on the judgment but expressed appreciation to the Supreme Court for providing clarity and conclusively resolving the matter. For the bank, the ruling closes a long chapter in its corporate history and allows it to move forward without the shadow of lingering legal uncertainty.
0 Comments