The legal face-off between Fidelity Bank Plc and Sagecom Concept Limited took a new turn on Monday as the dispute returned to the Supreme Court of Nigeria. At the hearing, Sagecom urged the apex court to dismiss a fresh motion filed by Fidelity Bank seeking a review of a judgment debt allegedly amounting to ₦225 billion, arguing that the bank’s application was a frivolous attempt to reopen a settled case.
The motion was heard before a five-member panel of justices led by Justice Mohammed Garba, with both sides represented by an array of senior legal practitioners.
Sagecom’s Argument: “This is an Abuse of Process”
Counsel to Sagecom, Mr. Adeyinka Olumide-Fusika (SAN), leading a high-profile legal team including Muiz Banire (SAN), Chief Ayotunde Ogunleye (SAN), and Adeola Adedipe (SAN), urged the Supreme Court to reject Fidelity Bank’s motion on the grounds that it lacked merit and constituted a clear abuse of judicial process.
Olumide-Fusika told the panel that the Supreme Court had already delivered a final and conclusive judgment in April 2025, affirming Sagecom’s position as the judgment creditor. He emphasized that all related appeals had been dismissed and that Fidelity Bank’s current application was a veiled attempt to relitigate settled matters under the guise of seeking clarification.
“This application is unwarranted and a clear abuse of the judicial process. All appeals arising from this matter have been determined conclusively by this apex court,” Olumide-Fusika said.
He maintained that the issues raised by the bank had been exhaustively addressed in prior rulings and that the judgment, as delivered, was “clear, final, and unambiguous.”
Fidelity Bank’s Position: “We Seek Clarification, Not Review”
Representing Fidelity Bank, Chief Wole Olanipekun (SAN), alongside other senior advocates including Chief Kanu Agabi (SAN), Onyechi Ikpeazu (SAN), and Kemi Pinheiro (SAN), argued that the motion — marked SC/CV/602/2021 — was not an attempt to reopen the case but rather to seek clarification on the computation of the judgment sum and applicable exchange rate.
Olanipekun explained that the bank’s motion, filed on October 8, 2025, asked the Supreme Court to correct what it described as “computational inconsistencies” in the total judgment amount. Fidelity Bank asserted that, based on its calculations, the debt stood at ₦30.19 billion as of April 11, 2025 — a figure dramatically lower than Sagecom’s claim of ₦225.28 billion.
“This application has been brought with every sense of responsibility. It is not intended to undermine the court’s authority but to ensure accuracy and legal clarity in executing the judgment,” Olanipekun submitted.
The bank’s counsel emphasized that Fidelity was only seeking the court’s interpretation of the proper monetary value of the ruling, given that parts of the original award were denominated in foreign currency.
Sagecom’s Counter: “Judgment Needs No Clarification”
In its counter-affidavit, deposed on October 23, 2025, by Mr. Samuel Miriki, Sagecom’s Managing Director, the company maintained that the judgment was explicit and that no aspect required clarification. The affidavit dismissed Fidelity Bank’s claim that the ruling involved ambiguities in foreign currency conversion, insisting that the decision was self-explanatory and final.
Sagecom argued that Fidelity’s move was a deliberate attempt to stall payment and delay enforcement of the court’s decision. It further objected to a deposition made by Fidelity’s Executive Director, Mr. Stanley Amuchie, calling it irrelevant and inconsistent with the finality of the Supreme Court’s judgment.
“None of the parties is ignorant of what the judgment stated and meant,” Sagecom said in its filing. “The claim that clarification is needed is a calculated effort to reopen a concluded matter.”
After hearing arguments from both sides, Justice Garba reserved ruling on the matter, noting that the court would deliver its decision at a later date.
Background of the Dispute
The legal conflict traces back to a 2018 ruling by the Lagos State High Court in suit number LD/1734/2011, involving Fidelity Bank, G. Cappa Plc, and Sagecom Concept Ltd. The case centered on unearned rent and property-related compensation for residential flats located at 23/25 Probyn Road, Ikoyi, Lagos.
In that judgment, delivered on January 30, 2018, the trial court held Fidelity Bank and G. Cappa liable to pay Sagecom compensation. Fidelity’s appeal to the Court of Appeal was dismissed, and its further challenge at the Supreme Court met the same fate when the apex court, on April 11, 2025, upheld the lower courts’ rulings, effectively making Sagecom the judgment creditor.
Fidelity’s latest motion, therefore, represents an attempt to revisit the financial computation of that final judgment — an action Sagecom insists is both procedurally improper and legally untenable.
Bank’s Clarification
In May 2025, Fidelity Bank confirmed the existence of the Supreme Court judgment but maintained that, based on its internal computation, the true settlement figure stood at ₦14 billion, not ₦225 billion. The bank attributed the dispute to an old credit facility granted by the now-defunct FSB International Bank to G. Cappa Plc in 2002, which later became entangled in the litigation with Sagecom.
As both parties await the Supreme Court’s decision, the case underscores the complexity of enforcing high-value judgments in Nigeria’s financial and legal sectors — and the delicate balance between finality in justice and the right to seek judicial clarification.
