The Central Bank of Nigeria has been ordered by Justice Inyang Ekwo of the Federal High Court in Abuja to reimburse Kasmal International Services N579,130,698,440 for its role in stamp duty collection, along with 10% annual interest.

From January 1, 2015, to January 31, 2020, the interest will be charged.

Kasmal filed a lawsuit against the CBN and the Attorney General of the Federation through their attorney, Alex Izinyon. They claimed that the Nigerian Postal Service had designated them to collect a N50 fee on all bank and financial institution receipts for services pertaining to electronic transfers and teller deposits of N1,000 and above.

The 2009 Nigerian Financial Regulations and the Stamp Duties Act were followed in making this appointment.

The plaintiff’s attorney further stated that NIPOST and the plaintiff had an agreement that stipulated the plaintiff would receive N7.50 for each N50 deduction, provided that his client’s portion had not yet been paid in full.

According to the court document, “The plaintiff has learnt through public disclosures made by the Governor of the CBN that subsequent remittances were made from the DMBs’ NIPOST STAMP DUTIES ACCOUNTS to the 1st Defendant NIPOST Stamp Duty Collection Account No. 3000047517 in the amount of over N370.7 billion, which were amounts that accrued within the period from January 1, 2015, to January 31, 2020. This was in addition to the initial payment of N10.367 billion to the plaintiff, which did not reflect the full value of all accrued deposits that should have been made into the 1st Defendant NIPOST Stamp Duty Collection Account No. 3000047517 from January 1, 2015 to January 31, 2020.

The Stamp Duty Collection Account now has N3.8 trillion in total, which can be distributed to the Federal Government, State Governments, Local Governments, Coordinating Consultants, Federal Inland Revenue Service (FIRS), and other organisations.

“That the N3.8 trillion in the Stamp Duty Collection Account includes the plaintiff’s 15%, or N579,130,698,440.

“The respondent defendants have begun transferring and disbursing the entire N3.8 trillion in the Stamp Duty Collection Account without taking into account the outstanding payments owed to the plaintiff.”

Upon the production of records pertaining to the stamp duty collection between January 1, 2015, and January 31, 2020, the plaintiff requested the court to issue an order directing the first and second defendants to pay the plaintiff N579,130,698,440, or any other sum that may be adjudicated by this Court. This amount represents 15% of all accrued deposits paid into, or which ought to have been paid into, the CBN NIPOST Stamp Duty Collection Account No. 3000047517 by all Deposit Money Banks.

A directive requiring the first and second defendants (CBN) to pay the plaintiff 10% annual interest on N579,130,698,440 or any other amount this court may determine upon the production of records pertaining to the stamp duty collection between January 1, 2015, and January 31, 2020. This amount represents 15% of all accumulated deposits paid into, or which should have been paid into, the CBN NIPOST Stamp Duty Collection Account No. 3000047517 by all Deposit Money Banks (DMBs).

Prior to the case’s hearing and resolution, the attorney requested that the court impose a stay on the first and second defendants’ ability to disburse, distribute, transfer, deplete, or take any other action with the total amount of deposits made into or that should have been made into the CBN NIPOST Stamp Duty Collection Account by all DMBs.

The Attorney General of the Federation and the Apex bank, represented by Chief Adeniyi Akintola (SAN), informed the court in their preliminary objection to the complaint with the file number FHC/ABJ/CS/335/2024 that the plaintiff’s purported agency contract with NIPOST is unlawful.

Only the Federal, State, and Local Governments, according to Akintola, are eligible to receive a portion of the money in the Federation Account.

According to him, stamp duty charges on bank transfers and deposits are a tax that is only handled by the federal government via the Federal Inland Revenue Service, making the plaintiff’s alleged appointment by NIPOST null and void from the start.

He argued that as NIPOST is not the organisation responsible for collecting stamp duties from the federal government, it lacks the right to designate the plaintiff to act as its collection agent.