Licence Revocation: Court Backs CBN’s Action Against Aso Savings, Union Homes

The Federal High Court in Abuja has refused an application seeking to stop the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) and the Nigeria Deposit Insurance Corporation (NDIC) from taking further steps following the revocation of the operating licences of Aso Savings and Loans Plc and Union Homes Savings and Loans Plc.

Delivering a ruling , Justice Emeka Nwite held that the interest of justice would be better served by placing the defendants on notice rather than granting the ex parte motion brought before the court by the plaintiffs.
According to the judge, after considering the submissions of counsel to the plaintiffs, as well as examining the affidavit evidence, exhibits, and written address, it was more appropriate to allow the defendants an opportunity to be heard.
“I have listened to the submission of counsel for the plaintiff/applicant and carefully examined the affidavit evidence, exhibits, and written address. I am of the opinion, and I so hold, that the interest of justice will be met by putting the defendants on notice,” Justice Nwite ruled.
Justice Nwite, who is sitting as the vacation judge, consequently ordered the defendants to appear before the court and show cause why the reliefs sought by the plaintiffs should not be granted. The case was adjourned to January 5, 2026, for further hearing.
The suit, marked FHC/ABJ/CS/2776/2025, was instituted by Aso Savings and Loans Plc, Union Homes Savings and Loans Plc, Ridhwan Hamza, and Ismaila Adamu as the first to fourth plaintiffs. The Central Bank of Nigeria and the Nigeria Deposit Insurance Corporation are named as the first and second defendants, respectively.
In the motion dated December 22 and filed on December 23 by counsel to the plaintiffs, Joseph Silas, the applicants sought two key reliefs. These include an order restraining the defendants from taking any further action on the revocation of the operating licences of the first and second plaintiffs pending the hearing and determination of the motion on notice, as well as an order preventing the defendants from enforcing what was described as an unlawful decision against the mortgage institutions pending the outcome of the case.
Arguing the application on four grounds, Silas contended that the CBN failed to comply with the conditions precedent required before exercising its statutory powers to revoke the operating licences of the two institutions. He further argued that the NDIC acted prematurely by attempting to take over the institutions without allowing them to exhaust the legal remedies available to them.
Silas submitted that unless the defendants were restrained, they would impose their alleged unlawful decisions on the plaintiffs in a manner that would be irreversible, urging the court to intervene in the interest of justice.
In an affidavit in support of the motion, Ridhwan Hamza, a shareholder of Aso Savings and the third plaintiff, acknowledged that the institutions had operational challenges known to the CBN. He stated, however, that the apex bank had issued Aso Savings an ultimatum to meet its minimum capital requirement by concluding all share reconstruction activities no later than August 31, 2025.
Hamza explained that despite providing positive updates to the CBN on efforts made to meet the requirements, the apex bank proceeded to revoke the licences of the institutions through a press release dated December 16, 2025, titled “Revocation of the Operational Licences of Aso Savings and Loans Plc and Union Homes Savings and Loans Plc.”
He noted that the CBN relied on Section 12 of the Banks and Other Financial Institutions Act (BOFIA) 2020 and Section 7.3 of its Revised Guidelines for Mortgage Banks in taking the decision, citing reasons such as failure to meet the minimum paid-up share capital requirement, insufficient assets to cover liabilities, critical undercapitalisation with capital adequacy below the prudential minimum, and non-compliance with regulatory directives.
Hamza, however, maintained that the CBN was fully aware of the steps and progress made by Aso Savings toward meeting its capital requirements and alleged that the revocation process did not comply with Section 34(4) of BOFIA 2020.
He further accused the NDIC of sending messages to customers of Aso Savings requesting them to submit online claims, despite provisions of the law granting the institutions a 30-day window within which to challenge the revocation.
According to Hamza, the actions of the defendants were arbitrary, unreasonable, and contrary to public policy, and amounted to a violation of the plaintiffs’ constitutional right to fair hearing. He added that the defendants would suffer no prejudice if the court granted the application and urged the court to intervene in the interest of justice.
ASHENEWS recalls that the Central Bank of Nigeria revoked the operating licences of Aso Savings and Loans Plc and Union Homes Savings and Loans Plc on December 16, 2025.