UBA Under Fire for Refusing to Release Man’s Property Deed 25 Years After Loan Clearance

United Bank for Africa (UBA) is facing serious allegations of unlawfully retaining the property documents of an Ibadan-based businessman, David Oloyede, more than two decades after he fully settled a N100,000 overdraft facility.

It was gathered that Oloyede secured the overdraft from UBA in 1990, using the deed to his landed property in Ibadan as collateral. The facility expired on August 16, 1999, but he reportedly defaulted briefly before clearing all outstanding debts, including interest and charges, by December 21, 2001. A 2003 bank statement obtained by the family shows that deductions for the overdraft had stopped, confirming a credit balance in the account.

However, despite the full repayment, UBA has allegedly held onto the original title documents for over 25 years, leaving the family frustrated and unable to utilize the property fully. Bode Oloyede, the son of the businessman, narrated the ordeal, stating that the bank has ignored numerous visits to its branches in Ibadan, formal letters from their lawyers, and even emails sent to the head office.

“My father paid back the loan completely, but UBA has refused to release the title document he deposited as collateral,” Bode told reporters. He added that the family has made repeated efforts, including a pre-action notice from their legal team, which emphasized: “All outstanding indebtedness was fully liquidated… leaving a credit balance after deduction of interest and administrative charges.”

The story, first broken by the Foundation for Investigative Journalism (FIJ), has sparked widespread outrage on social media and online forums. On platforms like Nairaland, users have speculated that the bank may have misplaced the documents or even sold the property, with some calling it a sign of poor corporate governance in Nigeria’s banking sector during the 1990s and early 2000s. One commenter urged the family to petition the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN), Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), and the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission (FCCPC) before heading to court.

Others expressed distrust in banks, with remarks like “Banks are the biggest 419ners” and demands for UBA to pay damages plus accrued interest over the years. The incident has also drawn comparisons to broader issues of customer trust and transparency in financial institutions, as highlighted in discussions on X (formerly Twitter), where the FIJ report was shared and reposted multiple times.

As of now, UBA has not responded to the allegations. Emails sent to the bank on January 12 and January 24 only received automated acknowledgments, with no substantive reply forthcoming. The Oloyede family insists they are prepared to take legal action if the documents are not released soon.

This case raises questions about banking practices and the need for stricter regulations to protect customers from such prolonged disputes.