Court summons CBN, NDIC over revocation of Aso Savings, Union Homes licences

A Federal High Court in Abuja has ordered the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) and the Nigeria Deposit Insurance Corporation (NDIC) to appear before it and explain why they should not be stopped from taking further action following the revocation of the licences of Aso Savings and Loans Plc and Union Homes Savings and Loans Plc.

Justice Emeka Nwite issued the order on Monday while ruling on an ex-parte motion filed by the two mortgage institutions and moved by their lawyer, Joseph Silas.

Although the applicants sought immediate orders restraining the CBN and NDIC, the judge declined to grant the request and instead directed that both agencies be put on notice.

“I am of the opinion that the interest of justice will be met by putting the defendants on notice,” Justice Nwite ruled, adding that the respondents must appear and show cause why the reliefs requested should not be granted.

The matter was adjourned to January 5, 2026.

The plaintiffs — Aso Savings, Union Homes, Ridhwan Hamza and Ismaila Adamu — had asked the court to stop the CBN and NDIC from taking further steps on the licence revocation and from enforcing what they described as an “unlawful decision,” pending the hearing of their substantive motion.

Silas argued that the CBN failed to meet legal requirements before revoking the licences, while the NDIC allegedly moved too quickly to take over the institutions without allowing them to exhaust their right to challenge the decision.

In a supporting affidavit, Hamza, a shareholder in Aso Savings, admitted the companies faced operational challenges but said they were working to meet regulatory demands.

He claimed the CBN revoked the licences despite ongoing efforts to recapitalise and despite assurances previously given to the regulator.

Hamza further argued that the decision was arbitrary and not in the public interest, adding that NDIC had already asked customers to file claims, a move he said could undermine the plaintiffs’ right to challenge the revocation in court.

He maintained that the plaintiffs were entitled to be heard and to contest the actions of the CBN and NDIC.