A fresh controversy has erupted between fintech firm PalmPay Limited and technology company KudiWave Technologies Limited over an alleged ₦750.37 million transfer from KudiWave’s account, with the firm demanding explanations over the movement of the funds.
KudiWave accused PalmPay of carrying out the transaction without its approval or prior notice, questioning where the money was sent and the legal basis for the debit.
The company said the disputed transaction of ₦750,369,439.04 appeared on its account on July 15, 2026, with the description “Judicial Adjustment.”
According to KudiWave, PalmPay claimed the transfer was executed based on a Federal High Court order issued in Lagos on June 29, 2026, in a matter involving the Inspector-General of Police.
However, the company argued that the order was later cancelled by the same court after it challenged the process through which it was obtained.
The court, on July 22, 2026, reportedly set aside, vacated and discharged the earlier order, directing that restrictions placed on KudiWave’s account be lifted.
The dispute started after the Police Special Fraud Unit, Ikoyi, Lagos, obtained an interim order restricting access to accounts belonging to several parties, including KudiWave.
The restriction, known as a 90-day Post-No-Debit order, was placed during an investigation into alleged financial offences.
KudiWave said it later discovered that the police had approached the court for another order concerning funds held in its PalmPay account.
The company said Justice Ibrahim Ahmad Kala of the Federal High Court granted the police application on June 29, leading to the disputed transaction.
But KudiWave fought back, filing an application on July 3 to stop the execution of the order, arguing that it was not properly served with the court documents that led to the decision.
The firm said PalmPay and the police were aware of its challenge before the matter was heard on July 13.
Despite this, KudiWave claimed the ₦750.37 million was moved from its account two days later, while the court was yet to deliver its ruling.
The company said it only discovered the transaction after access to its account was restored.
KudiWave further alleged that records showed the money was transferred to an Access Bank business account, rather than the Police Recovery Account or Police Special Fraud Unit account mentioned in the court proceedings.
The company said the alleged discrepancy has raised questions about the identity of the beneficiary and whether the transaction followed the exact terms of the court order.
It is demanding that PalmPay disclose details of the transfer, including the receiving account, beneficiary information, authorising instructions and the specific part of the court order relied upon.
KudiWave also wants an explanation on when PalmPay received the court documents and why the transfer was processed despite being aware that the order was being challenged.
The firm stressed that its complaint was not against financial institutions obeying valid court orders, but against what it described as a possible mismatch between the transaction carried out and the order used as justification.
KudiWave also alleged that its Company Secretary, Prince Oko, was asked by officers of the Police Special Fraud Unit to pay ₦50 million to secure the removal of the account restriction.
The company said it rejected the alleged demand.
The bribery allegation has not been proven in court.
KudiWave said it was considering further legal and regulatory steps to recover the funds and obtain a complete account of how the money left its account.
The dispute has also raised fresh concerns over how financial institutions handle court directives involving customers’ funds, especially when such orders are later contested.
Reacting to the claims, PalmPay denied any wrongdoing, insisting that the transaction was carried out based on a valid Federal High Court order.
The fintech company rejected allegations that it illegally debited KudiWave’s account, maintaining that it acted within the law.
However, KudiWave insists that PalmPay must provide a full explanation on the transaction and clarify why the alleged destination of the funds does not match what was contained in the court proceedings.
Don’t Miss Out! Join our WhatsApp Channel for instant news updates. Click here to join
ALSO READ:
Journalist Accuses Bank MD Of sleeping with his wife
STERLING BANK N840M FRAUD! Ex-Staff Allegedly Moves Millions Through Fake Transactions
