MoMo Payment Service Bank Limited (MoMo PSB), an MTN fintech subsidiary, has sued 18 commercial banks in an effort to recoup N22.3 billion that was inadvertently sent to 8,000 consumers.
The business asserted that the improper transfer was the result of a computer error.
Momo PSB apparently experienced a huge security breach just one week after beginning a N22 billion operation.
The PSB asked the court in a lawsuit with case number FHC/L/CS/960/2022 filed on May 30, 2022, to determine that the deposit worth N22.3 billion belonged to it and not the bank’s customers.
The petition was a part of the reliefs demanded in the lawsuit brought by MoMo PSB on behalf of a Senior Nigerian Advocate, Lotanna Okoli.
In addition to other relief, the MTN bank is asking the court to issue an order mandating that each of the 18 banks separately account for the funds that are still in their customers’ accounts as well as the funds that have been taken out by those same customers and are no longer there.
The Chief Executive Officer of MOMO PSB, Anthony Usoro Usoro, stated in an affidavit supporting the originating summons that MOMO PSB Limited is the legitimate owner of the total N22.3 billion that is kept in its MOMO settlement account.
He claimed that money had been mistakenly transferred from its settlement account to other accounts managed by the 18 banks on or around the 24th day of May 2022.
Usoro stated that credits were made into around 8,000 different accounts at the 18 institutions cited, totaling 700,000 transactions.
He said that as soon as management at MOMO PSB Ltd learned about the event, it quickly shut down the service to lessen its impact and contacted the banks to start recovery efforts from the accounts of the various beneficiaries in the 18 institutions.
MOMO is contending that under the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) Regulation on Instant (Inter-Bank) Electronic Funds Transfer Services, made under sections 2(D), 33(1)6), and 47(2) of the CBN Act 2007, it is incumbent on the 18 banks to make the refund and provide the required information.
It added that its resort to the court was informed by the insistence of the 18 banks that they needed to be ordered by the Federal High Court before they could act