A dispute over N750,369,439.04 belonging to Kudiwave Technologies Limited has taken a new turn, with the company demanding the immediate return of the funds allegedly transferred from its PalmPay settlement account while a court ruling on the account was pending.

The development followed a protest by Kudiwave at PalmPay’s office on Opebi Road, Ikeja, Lagos, where the company demanded explanations over the whereabouts of the money and called on the police to investigate the circumstances surrounding the transfer.

Kudiwave alleged that the money was debited from its PalmPay account, number 8889232516, on July 15, 2026, under the narration “Judicial Adjustment”, seven days before the Federal High Court, Lagos, set aside the order upon which the transfer was made.

The dispute has raised questions about the circumstances surrounding the transfer, the destination of the funds and who bears responsibility for their return following the setting aside of the order.

Court documents supplied by Kudiwave show that the Police, through the Police Special Fraud Unit (PSFU), obtained an order from the Federal High Court in Lagos on June 29, 2026.

The order, in Suit No. FHC/L/CS/795/2026, between the Inspector-General of Police and PalmPay Limited and Kudiwave Technologies Limited, directed PalmPay to disclose the balance in Kudiwave’s account and “forthwith recover, reverse, and/or transfer” all funds standing to the credit of the account to the Nigeria Police Force Microfinance Bank – Special Fraud Unit Account No. 0020269175, described in the order as the designated Police Exhibit Account. JoinDiaspora Networks

The court also ordered PalmPay to place the account under strict restriction and cooperate with the police in identifying and tracing the account’s operators.

Justice Ibrahim Ahmad Kala made the order after hearing the police and PalmPay’s counsel.

The court record stated that there was “no appearance for the 2nd Respondent despite service of the application and hearing notice at its registered address”, referring to Kudiwave.

Kudiwave, however, subsequently challenged the order.

According to the company, it became aware of the order on July 2 and approached the same court seeking, among other things, an order setting it aside and staying its execution.

Its application was argued on July 13, with the court adjourning the matter for ruling.

It was against this background that Kudiwave said it was surprised that the entire balance of N750,369,439.04 was transferred from its account on July 15.

Kudiwave’s Company Secretary, Prince Oko Kalu, who addressed protesters, said the transfer took place while the company’s application challenging the order was awaiting determination.

He said the company was seeking answers to three central questions, including who authorised the transfer, where the money went and why it had not been returned after the order was set aside.

According to him, the company’s transaction statement showed the debit on July 15 at 3:38:31am, with the narration: “Judicial Adjustment – Cash_Access Bank_0552 BUSINESS_ACCOUNT.”

“Kudiwave’s position is that the money did not go into the Police Microfinance Bank account expressly identified in the June 29 court order,” he said.

The company’s solicitors, Onwumere & Co, made the same allegation in a July 29 letter to PalmPay, demanding disclosure of the beneficiary’s name, account number, BVN and the mandate or authority relied upon for the transfer.

The lawyers demanded the immediate reversal of the N750,369,439.04, with interest at 21 per cent per annum from July 15 until full payment.

PalmPay, however, rejected the allegation that the debit was unlawful.

In a response signed by its Legal Counsel, Caleb Aluya, the company said the transfer was made solely in obedience to the Federal High Court’s June 29 order, which, according to PalmPay, remained valid, binding and enforceable on July 15.

PalmPay also disputed Kudiwave’s reliance on an earlier letter in which it had indicated that it considered it appropriate to await the determination of the pending motion before taking further steps.

According to the payment company, that communication was intended to mitigate the consequences of non-compliance with the court order and to give Kudiwave an opportunity to obtain a valid order staying or varying the substantive order.

PalmPay said its position was not an admission that its obligation to comply with the existing order had been suspended.

It further stated that Kudiwave was covered by an earlier ex-parte order and that PalmPay was expressly listed as a respondent in that order.

“PalmPay therefore acted strictly in compliance with the express terms of the Court’s Order and not on its own initiative,” the company said.

On the N750.36 million debit, PalmPay said it had “consistently” complied with valid court orders served on it and would continue to do so.

The company added that following the ruling delivered on July 22, it had formally engaged the Nigeria Police Force and requested compliance with the court’s decision. JoinDiaspora Networks

PalmPay maintained that because the funds were transferred to the designated Police Recovery Account pursuant to the June 29 order, any further steps towards implementing the July 22 ruling should be directed to the police, which it described as the current custodian of the funds.

The dispute took another turn on July 22, when, according to documents supplied by Kudiwave, the Federal High Court set aside, vacated and discharged the June 29 order.

The ruling also directed the removal of restrictions placed on Kudiwave’s account number 8889232516.

PalmPay subsequently acknowledged the court’s decision in a July 22 letter to Kudiwave’s solicitors, stating that the restriction on the account had been lifted.

However, the company did not immediately regain access to the N750.36 million transferred seven days earlier.

This has become the central point of the current dispute.

While Kudiwave contends that the money should be returned following the setting aside of the order, PalmPay argues that it had already complied with a valid order and that the funds were thereafter in the custody of the police.

The dispute has also spilt into a separate fundamental rights action being pursued by Kudiwave.

In documents in support of the application, the company accused some officers of the Police Special Fraud Unit of demanding N50 million in alleged bribes, threatening its representatives and attempting to transfer its funds to the Police Exhibit Account.

The allegations were made in an affidavit sworn to by Kalu.

Kudiwave also alleged that its business had been severely disrupted by the restriction placed on its account since April.

It claimed that it had been unable to meet contractual obligations, pay salaries, settle statutory obligations and conduct its day-to-day operations.

The company is seeking declarations that the alleged freezing of its account, attempts to transfer its funds and alleged demands for money violated its constitutional rights.

It is also seeking N500 million in general, exemplary and aggravated damages, as well as orders restraining the police from further interfering with its account and business operations.

At the protest, Kudiwave said the dispute had gone beyond the company because its settlement account was used in processing funds belonging to customers.

Kalu said traders, freelancers, students, small business owners and other customers had been affected by the restriction.

He said the company was not seeking special treatment but wanted the law to be applied to all parties.

“This is not merely a Kudiwave issue,” he said, arguing that the development should concern Nigerian startups, small businesses and investors who depend on digital payment platforms.

He called on the Inspector-General of Police, Olatunji Disu, to ensure the immediate return of the N750,369,439.04 and disclose the account to which the money was transferred and the officers who authorised the transaction.

Kudiwave also demanded an independent investigation into the circumstances surrounding the transfer and the failure to return the money after the court’s ruling. (The Nation)