The fintech says the July 15 transfer was made under a valid Federal High Court order directing funds into a Police Recovery Account
PalmPay Limited has rejected allegations by Kudiwave Technologies Limited that the fintech unlawfully transferred ₦750,369,439.04 from Kudiwave’s account, saying the July 15, 2026 transaction was carried out in compliance with a subsisting Federal High Court order.
Also read: PalmPay wins top Consumer-Friendly Business Award
PalmPay issued the response on Friday, August 7, 2026, after Kudiwave, through its solicitors, Tony Eseigbe & Co., accused the fintech of withdrawing the funds without authorisation or prior notice under the narration “Judicial Adjustment”.
The dispute centres on the relationship between two court-related developments involving Kudiwave’s account.
Kudiwave said its account had earlier been subjected to a Post-No-Debit restriction following an order obtained in April by officers of the Special Fraud Unit, Ikoyi.
The company argued that the restriction was subsequently lifted by the Federal High Court in Lagos before the ₦750.37 million transfer took place.
According to Kudiwave’s solicitors, the company did not authorise the July 15 transaction and was not informed beforehand that the funds would be transferred.
The lawyers questioned how such a substantial amount could have been removed after the court had set aside the order that originally formed the basis for the restriction.
They also raised allegations of possible collusion involving PalmPay, some officers of the Special Fraud Unit and other financial institutions, and called for an investigation into the circumstances surrounding the transaction.
PalmPay has categorically rejected those allegations.
In a statement signed by its Head of Marketing and Communications, Olorunfemi Hanson, the fintech said the transaction was not an independent action by the company but the execution of a subsequent court directive.
“The transfer referenced was made on July 15, 2026, in compliance with a subsequent court order of the Federal High Court in Suit No. FHC/L/CS/795/2026, made on June 29, 2026, which directed PalmPay to disclose the account balance and transfer the identified funds to a designated Police Recovery Account,” PalmPay said.
“At the time the transfer was effected, the court order remained valid and had not been set aside. PalmPay therefore acted in compliance with a binding directive of the Federal High Court.”
The company said it neither initiated the transfer independently nor retained any of the money.
“PalmPay did not initiate the transfer independently, nor did the company retain or benefit from the funds,” it said.
The fintech also pointed to its obligations as a regulated financial institution, arguing that compliance with valid orders from courts of competent jurisdiction is mandatory.
“As a regulated financial institution, PalmPay is required to comply with all valid orders issued by the courts of competent jurisdiction,” the company stated.
“We therefore reject any suggestion that PalmPay acted unlawfully in this matter.”
The disagreement follows an earlier exchange between the parties over the Post-No-Debit restriction.
In a letter dated July 22, 2026, PalmPay’s legal counsel, Caleb Aluya, informed Onwumere & Co., which represented Kudiwave, that the restriction on the account had been lifted following a ruling delivered by Justice Ibrahim Kala of the Federal High Court in Lagos on June 29.
“Please be informed that, pursuant to the ruling of the Honourable Court delivered by Justice Ibrahim Kala on June 29, 2026, in Suit No. FHC/L/CS/795/2026, Inspector General of Police v. PalmPay Limited & Kudiwave Technologies Limited, on the Motion on Notice dated June 15, 2026, the restriction placed on your client’s account has been lifted,” the letter stated.
PalmPay also said its counsel had been present during the proceedings and that the company’s appearance was recorded by the court.
That confirmation followed a demand from Kudiwave’s lawyers accusing PalmPay of continuing to restrict the account despite the court’s directive.
The lawyers argued that any continued restriction after the ruling would be unlawful and potentially amount to contempt of court.
They also warned that Kudiwave could commence contempt proceedings and seek damages for losses allegedly resulting from its inability to access the account.
According to the lawyers, the restriction had disrupted Kudiwave’s operations, affected its ability to meet financial obligations and exposed the company to significant commercial losses.
The latest dispute, however, turns on PalmPay’s assertion that the June 29 proceedings did more than lift the earlier restriction.
PalmPay says the same court proceedings resulted in an order directing it to disclose the account balance and transfer specified funds to a designated Police Recovery Account.
That distinction is central to the competing accounts. Kudiwave has focused on the lifting of the Post-No-Debit restriction and the absence of authorisation from the company, while PalmPay has relied on what it describes as a separate and binding direction contained in the June 29 order.
Neither side’s public statements, by themselves, finally resolve the underlying legal questions surrounding the order or the circumstances of the transfer.
The allegations of collusion made by Kudiwave have also been rejected by PalmPay, which has maintained that it acted as a regulated institution complying with a court directive rather than as an independent beneficiary of the funds.
The amount involved, more than ₦750 million, has nevertheless given the disagreement significant commercial weight.
For Kudiwave, the central concern is whether the transfer was lawful after the account restriction had been lifted. For PalmPay, the central issue is whether the June 29 order remained valid when the transfer was executed on July 15.
PalmPay said it remains committed to operating within the law and will continue to cooperate with relevant authorities and parties where required.
The dispute therefore remains a matter of competing legal positions, with the interpretation and effect of the Federal High Court’s orders likely to be crucial to determining the next stage.
Also read: PalmPay youth training launch empowers young Nigerians with digital safety
Until those questions are resolved by the appropriate legal process, the ₦750.37 million transfer remains at the heart of a contentious dispute between the fintech company and Kudiwave Technologies.
Oreoluwa is an accountant and a brand writer with a flair for journalism.
