KUDIWAVE SEEKS REGULATORY PROBE INTO ₦750M PALMPAY DEBIT AS COURT VACATES UNDERLYING ORDER
Company questions beneficiary account, due process and compliance with Federal High Court directive
By Our Business and Legal Affairs Editor
Kudiwave Technologies Limited has called for regulatory and judicial scrutiny of the transfer of ₦750,369,439.04 from its Palmpay account, saying the transaction raises serious questions about the handling of customer funds and the execution of court orders by financial institutions.
The company says the debit, recorded on 15 July 2026 as a “Judicial Adjustment,” was carried out without its authorisation or prior notification.
Although Palmpay reportedly relies on an order of the Federal High Court made on 29 June 2026, Kudiwave argues that significant questions remain about the precise scope of that order, the destination of the funds and the process followed before the transfer was executed.
The June 29 order was subsequently set aside, vacated and discharged by the Federal High Court on 22 July 2026.
The court also ordered the removal of restrictions on Kudiwave Technologies Limited’s account.
COURT REVISITS EARLIER ORDER
Kudiwave had approached the Federal High Court after learning that an order affecting its funds had been made in proceedings brought by the Police Special Fraud Unit.
The company challenged the order on grounds that included alleged defects in service and denial of an effective opportunity to be heard.
Justice Ibrahim Ahmad Kala subsequently reviewed the circumstances in which the June 29 order had been made.
The court reportedly found the circumstances surrounding service on Kudiwave troubling and ultimately granted the company’s application to set the earlier order aside.
The ruling did not prevent the Police from pursuing legitimate criminal investigations or proceedings against any person found culpable.
It did, however, invalidate the June 29 order affecting Kudiwave and direct the removal of restrictions on its account.
MONEY HAD ALREADY LEFT THE ACCOUNT
Kudiwave says that by the time the July 22 ruling was delivered, ₦750,369,439.04 had already been transferred from its account.
The transaction occurred on 15 July.
Importantly, Kudiwave says Palmpay had already been served with its application challenging the order before that date.
The company filed its motion on 3 July, and the application was heard on 13 July before being adjourned for ruling.
Kudiwave also noted records of activity on the account showing that Palmpay transferred the money on July 11 and returned it to the account later that same day, before another transfer was made on July 15. The company noted that these movements took place while the account was frozen and said it only became aware of the transactions after the account was reopened.
Kudiwave is therefore asking whether sufficient caution was exercised before a transaction involving more than three-quarters of a billion naira was executed while the legal foundation for the transfer was under active challenge.
DESTINATION OF FUNDS DISPUTED
Kudiwave has also raised a separate issue concerning the account into which the money was allegedly transferred.
According to the company, the June 29 order contemplated transfer into a designated Police Recovery Account or Police Special Fraud Unit exhibit account.
Kudiwave alleges that its statement instead reflects a transfer to an Access Bank business account.
The company says Palmpay should disclose the identity of the beneficiary account and the legal instrument authorising payment into that account.
That disclosure, Kudiwave argues, is necessary to determine whether the transaction was executed strictly in accordance with the court order.
ALLEGATIONS INVOLVING POLICE OFFICERS
The dispute arose after Kudiwave’s account was subjected to an earlier 90-day Post-No-Debit restriction pursuant to an ex-parte order obtained by the Inspector-General of Police.
Kudiwave says it later established that the restriction was connected with an investigation by the Police Special Fraud Unit, Ikoyi.
The company alleges that during efforts to resolve the restriction, a demand of ₦50 million was made by officers connected with the investigation in exchange for facilitating the lifting of the restriction.
Kudiwave says it refused.
The allegation has not been judicially determined and remains subject to proof.
QUESTIONS FOR FINANCIAL REGULATORS
Kudiwave’s complaint raises issues extending beyond the immediate dispute between the parties.
Among them is the extent to which a financial institution must independently ensure that enforcement action taken against a customer’s funds corresponds exactly with the terms of a court order.
There is also the question of what level of caution is required where a bank or fintech institution knows that the underlying order has been challenged and a ruling is pending.
Kudiwave contends that compliance with a court order is not established merely by describing a debit as a judicial transaction.
Rather, the institution must be able to demonstrate a direct connection between the wording of the order, the transaction executed, the beneficiary account and the amount transferred.
KUDIWAVE DEMANDS FULL DISCLOSURE
The company is demanding a full accounting of the ₦750,369,439.04 transaction.
It wants disclosure of the precise instruction authorising the debit, the court process relied upon, the identity of the receiving account, the ownership of that account and the reason the transfer allegedly went to a destination different from the police recovery account referred to in the judicial proceedings.
Kudiwave also wants clarification on whether Palmpay considered the company’s pending application challenging the June 29 order before executing the transaction.
The company says it is considering additional legal and regulatory measures aimed at recovering the funds and determining responsibility.
At stake, Kudiwave argues, is a principle fundamental to confidence in the financial system: that money entrusted to a financial institution can only be removed pursuant to clear lawful authority, exercised strictly within its terms and capable of full accountability afterward.