PalmPay faces questions after N750m moves from KudiWave account during restriction

 

PalmPay Limited is facing questions over transactions involving N750,369,439.04 from the account of KudiWave Technologies Limited while the account was under restriction and the legal process affecting the funds was being challenged.

PalmPay has maintained that the July 15 transfer was carried out pursuant to the June 29 order of the Federal High Court concerning funds standing to KudiWave’s credit.

KudiWave, however, disputes that explanation as sufficient, arguing that the key questions are whether the transaction complied with the precise terms of the court process, where the money was sent and why funds were moved while its challenge to the June 29 order was already before the court.

KudiWave said it only became aware of the full extent of the transactions after access to the account was restored. Its records showed that funds were moved on July 11, 2026 and returned the same day before another debit of N750,369,439.04 was recorded on July 15 under the narration “Judicial Adjustment.”

The fintech company maintains that it was not notified before the transactions took place and did not authorise the movement of the funds.

By the time the July 15 transaction was carried out, KudiWave had already approached the Federal High Court in Lagos to challenge an earlier order affecting the account.

The application was filed on July 3, 2026, with KudiWave asking the court to set aside the June 29 order and stay its execution. PalmPay and the Police were served with the application before it was heard on July 13.

KudiWave maintains that PalmPay did not file a counter affidavit opposing the application. After hearing the motion, the court adjourned the matter for ruling.

Two days later, the N750.37 million was transferred from the account.

KudiWave believes the timing deserves closer examination because its challenge to the June 29 order had already been argued before the same court before the money was moved.

“The concern is not only that the funds left the account. We need a complete transaction trail showing the authority for every movement, the beneficiary and the destination of the money,” KudiWave said.

The dispute had begun earlier after the Inspector General of Police, through the Police Special Fraud Unit in Ikoyi, obtained an ex parte order under Motion No. FHC/L/MISC/470/2026.

That order placed restrictions on several accounts, including KudiWave’s, for 90 days pending investigation.

KudiWave said it made efforts to understand why the restriction had been imposed and later discovered that the action was linked to an investigation by officers of the Police Special Fraud Unit.

Further proceedings concerning funds standing to KudiWave’s credit were later brought under Suit No. FHC/L/CS/795/2026.

When the matter came before Justice Ibrahim Ahmad Kala of the Federal High Court, Lagos Judicial Division, on June 29, counsel appeared for the Police Special Fraud Unit and PalmPay, while KudiWave was not represented.

The Police moved its application concerning funds described in the proceedings as suspected proceeds of crime, and the court granted the application.

During the same proceedings, the Police also withdrew an earlier motion filed on April 20, 2026, which the court struck out.

KudiWave later challenged the June 29 decision, maintaining that it had not been properly served with the processes leading to the order.

That challenge eventually came up for determination on July 22, when Justice Kala granted KudiWave’s application, discharged the June 29 order, and directed that the restriction on the company’s account be removed.

In arriving at the decision, the court examined the manner in which the earlier processes had been served on KudiWave.

The ruling questioned whether leaving the documents at a gate without sufficient identification of the company’s specific address could reasonably have brought the proceedings to its attention.

The court described the circumstances surrounding the service as “very curious.”

Although the July 22 ruling was delivered after the July 15 transaction, KudiWave maintains that PalmPay had already been put on notice that the June 29 order was being challenged and that the application had already been heard before the funds left the account.

Another key part of the dispute concerns where the N750,369,439.04 was eventually sent.

KudiWave maintains that the judicial process concerning the funds contemplated payment into a designated Police Recovery Account linked to the Police Special Fraud Unit.

Its account records, however, show that the money was transferred to an Access Bank business account.

That difference has become one of the main issues KudiWave wants clarified.

“A transaction involving more than N750 million should have a clear and verifiable destination. The records should show exactly who received the money and the instruction that authorised the payment,” the company said.

KudiWave is also seeking an explanation for the July 11 movement, when the funds were taken out and returned on the same day while the account remained under restriction.

The company said it had no knowledge of that activity at the time.

KudiWave has further stated that its Company Secretary, Barrister Prince Oko, met officers of the Police Special Fraud Unit, including CSP Aliyu Hussaini Musa and Inspector Bolaji, while trying to resolve the restriction.

KudiWave said a demand for N50 million was made to facilitate the removal of the restriction, but the company declined the request.

The company is now seeking a complete reconciliation of the transactions carried out on the account during the restriction period, including the instructions behind the July 11 and July 15 movements and the identity of the beneficiary that received the N750.37 million.

It is also considering further legal and regulatory steps aimed at recovering the funds and establishing responsibility for how the transactions were handled.

For KudiWave, the issue now goes beyond the restriction itself. The company wants a clear account of how the funds were moved, why the money was returned on July 11, why it was transferred again four days later and whether the final destination matched the account contemplated in the court process.