A Federal High Court in Abuja has summoned the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) and Nigeria Deposit Insurance Cooperation (NDIC) to show cause why they should not be restrained from taking further actions in relation to the recent revocation of the licences of Aso Savings and Loans Plc and Union Homes Savings and Loans Plc.

Justice Emeka Nwite issued the order in a ruling on Monday on an ex-parte motion filed by both mortgage institutions, which was moved by their lawyer, Joseph Silas.

The judge declined the applicants’ request and order restraining the respondents, but instead, ordered that the CBN and the NDIC should be put on notice.

Justice Nwite said, “I have listened to the submission of the counsel for the plaintiffs/applicants and I have gone through the affidavit evidence, the exhibit, including the 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.

“I hereby ordered that the defendant be put on notice to come and show cause why the reliefs sought should not be granted.”

He adjourned till January 5, 2026 for the CBN and NDIC to show cause.

The plaintiffs – Aso Savings, Union Homes, Ridhwan Hamza and Ismaila Adamu – had, in the ex-parte motion, sought two reliefs.

*An order restraining the defendants/respondents from taking further steps on the purported revocation of the operational licence of the first and second plaintiffs (Aso Savings and Union Homes), pending the hearing and determination of the motion on notice.

*An order barring the defendants/respondents from enforcing their unlawful decision in any way, form or manner, against the first and second plaintiffs/applicants, pending the hearing and determination of the motion on notice.

Silas had, while moving the motion, stated that the CBN did not comply with the condition precedent to the invocation of its power to revoke the operating licence of both mortgage institutions.

He added that the NDIC, without allowing the two mortgage institutions to exhaust their rights of action, moved to curtail such rights by attempting to take over them.

The lawyer added that if the CBN and NDIC were not restrained, they will impose upon the plaintiffs/applicants their unlawful decisions in an irreversible way.

In a supporting affidavit, Hamza, described as a shareholder in Aso Savings, admitted that the institutions had operational challenges, which the CBN was aware of.

Hamza claimed that the CBN, without carrying out any measure to intervene on the failures of the plaintiffs, gave Aso Savings an ultimatum to meet its minimum capital requirement by ensuring that all share reconstruction activities are concluded in a manner that fully address the capital shortfall not later than August 31, 2025.

He said, “I know that notwithstanding the positive updates made to the first defendant/respondent (CBN) by the plaintiffs/applicants on December 16, 2025 in a press release titled, ‘Revocation of the Operational Licenses of Aso Savings and Loans Plc and Union Homes Savings and Loans Ple.

“The first defendant/respondent, relying on Section 12 of BOFIA 2020 and Section7.3 of its Revised Guidelines for Mortgage Banks, revoked the licenses of the plaintiffs/applicants.

“I know that the 1st defendant/respondent grounded its decision on:

*Failure to meet the minimum paid-up share capital requirement for the category of the bank licence granted to the plaintiffs/applicants

*Having insufficient assets to meet its liabilities; being critically undercapitalised with a capital adequacy ratio below the prudential minimum ratio as prescribed by the 1st defendant/respondent; and

*Failure to comply with several directives and obligations imposed upon the plaintiffs/applicants by the 1st defendant/respondent.

He claimed that the CBN was aware of all the steps and progress made by the Aso Savings in raising its minimum capital requirement, with absolute success.

Hamza added that the CBN did not act in public interest when it made the press release revoking the operational license of the two institutions, without following the requirement of Section 34 (4) of the Banks and Other Financial Institutions Act, 2020.

He claimed that the action of the CBN was arbitrary, rash unreasonable and runs contrary to public policy of developing the Nigerian economy, creating jobs and encouraging investments.

Hamza said the NDIC had sent out messages to Aso Savings’ customers “asking them to fill out an online claims form against the plaintiffs/applicants, even as the law allows the plaintiffs/applicants a window of 30 days to challenge the actions of the 1st defendant/respondent.

He added, “I know that the steps taken by the second defendant/respondent is aimed at extinguishing the right of the plaintiffs/applicants to challenge the actions of the 1st defendant/respondent by immediately commencing liquidation process.

“I know that the plaintiffs/applicants have constitutional rights to be heard fairly and to challenge the actions of the defendants/respondents.” (The Nation)