Shamed For Debt: Analysis Of Available Judicial Redress Against Loan App Harassment And Defamation In The Case Of Mr. Peter Odang Enyigwe V. Fastcredit Limited & 2 Ors.

1. Introduction

The digital shaming and/or digital defamation of debtors by Loan Apps and other categories of Digital Money Lenders ("DMLs") in Nigeria is on the rise. Loan Apps have weaponized "shame" as a tool for debt collection in the digital debt market and this neoteric debt recovery strategy calls for a legal exploration of the judicial protections available to debtors battling with Loan App defamation and questionable debt recovery strategies. The media is replete with reports of harassment of debtors by Loan Apps via unauthorized sharing of a debtor's personal data, excessive phone calls, threats and intimidation, and/or the use of abusive and derogatory words.¹ These questionable practices often breach a debtor's human dignity and privacy rights and violate consumer protection laws in Nigeria.

On 31st October 2024, the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory ("FCT") delivered judgment in the case of Mr. Peter Odang Enyigwe v. Fastcredit Limited & 2 Ors. ("Enyigwe's Case"),² and resolved that digitally debt-shaming a borrower, without lawful justification, amounts to defamation. This paper is aimed at dissecting, into digestible bits, the factual and legal basis for the decision in Enyigwe's Case; educating borrowers and debtors on the legal remedies available to them when they are faced with digital harassment by Loan Apps or DMLs; educating lenders or Loan Apps on lawful avenues for debt recovery; and advocating for the abolition of debt-shaming as a debt recovery strategy in Nigeria by Loan Apps and DMLs.

2. Case Summary of Mr. Peter Odang Enyigwe v. Fastcredit Limited & 2 Ors.

The Claimant, a businessman and Managing Director of several companies, was involved in several high-value business projects, such as contracts with the University of Calabar and a consulting job with New Satii-An Nigeria Limited, worth millions of dollars. Sometime in the year 2022, due to his funds being tied up in ongoing jobs, the Claimant applied for a micro-loan of Twenty-Four Thousand Naira (N24,000.00) from the 1st Defendant, a licensed non-bank financial institution.

Unable to repay the loan on time, the 1st Defendant threatened the Claimant via WhatsApp, demanding immediate payment and stating that it would declare the Claimant and his contacts wanted for fraud. Despite the attempts made by the Claimant to settle the debt in good faith, the 1st Defendant published defamatory content online, including the Claimant's photographs, taken from his Facebook page, with the caption "WANTED FOR FRAUD AND THREAT TO LIFE." Below the Claimant's photographs, the 1st Defendant added the following statement:

This message was further shared on WhatsApp to several of the Claimant's contacts, including the Claimant's two (2) witnesses, and across various WhatsApp platforms. This false publication caused the Claimant severe reputational damage, with several contacts calling him to express their shock. It even resulted in the termination of his consultancy job with New Global Satii-An Nigeria Limited. Despite settling his debt, the defamatory content remained, causing further harm. Aggrieved by this digital shaming, the Claimant commenced a suit against the Defendants and, in his Statement of Claim, sought the following reliefs:

1. The sum of Two Billion Naira (N2,000,000,000.00) as General Damages for defamation;
2. Unreserved apologies from the 1st Defendant in four Dailies with nationwide spread and to all his (the Claimant's contacts) to whom the libelous publication was made;
3. The cost of the Suit; and
4. Post-judgment interest of 10%.

The Defendants did not enter an appearance, nor did they file a Statement of Defence despite being served with the court processes. When hearing commenced, the Claimant called two (2) witnesses and testified as the third witness. The Claimant's witnesses tendered documents which were admitted in evidence and marked as Exhibits A – N. As stated earlier, the Defendants did not file a defence and were foreclosed from cross-examining the Claimant's witnesses and defending the Suit.

3. Decision of the Court in Enyigwe's Case

By way of an introduction, the Court observed that "defamation" encompasses any imputation which may tend to lower the Claimant in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally.⁴ Relying on the Supreme Court decision in Ologe & Ors. v. New Africa Holdings Limited,⁵ the Court enumerated six co-terminous ingredients which a claimant must prove to succeed in an action for defamation:

1. Publication of the offending words;
2. That the words complained of refer to the claimant;
3. That the words are defamatory of the claimant;
4. That the words were published to third parties;
5. That the words were false or lack accuracy; and
6. That there are no justifiable legal grounds for the publication of the words.⁶

In addressing the first ingredient, which is "the publication of the defamatory words," the Court noted that in an action for defamation, the burden is on the Claimant to prove that the defamatory statements were published and conveyed a harmful meaning to those who received them. Marrying the law to the facts of the case, the Court found that the Claimant presented two witnesses who both testified that they received the defamatory message concerning the Claimant, and it diminished the Claimant's reputation in their view and that their disposition towards him has changed.⁷ The Court further held that the two witnesses, called by the Claimant, tendered documents which contained the defamatory message they received from the Defendants.

Regarding the second ingredient, which is "that the words complained of refer to the claimant," the Court held that the words complained of referred to the Claimant as the Claimant's picture, phone numbers and name were clearly contained in it.⁸ On the third ingredient, which requires "that the words be defamatory of the claimant," the Court held that the publication in question portrayed the Claimant as being "wanted for fraud and threat to life" and that such an assertion undoubtedly has the potential to smear the reputation of any individual against whom it is made.⁹ The Court parenthetically noted that "fraud" is a serious criminal offence, and no reasonable person would want to be labeled as "fraudulent". Significantly, the Court declared that "the nature of the relationship between the Claimant and the 1st Defendant was merely that of lender and borrower," which did not justify the Defendants' actions and that "there were other legal avenues available for recovering the loan that did not require damaging the Claimant's reputation in such a manner."¹⁰

Concerning the fourth ingredient, which is "that the defamatory words were published to third parties," the Court found that the two witnesses, called by the Claimant, testified that they received the said defamatory message and that it negatively impacted their perception of the Claimant, leaving them with doubts about his personality and character, despite their prior knowledge of him.¹¹ This factual reality established this particular ingredient.

On the fifth and sixth ingredients, which are "that the words were false or lack accuracy" and "that there are no justifiable legal grounds for the publication of the words," the Court observed that there are a number of defences available to a defendant in a claim of defamation¹² but that the Defendants in this case did not enter a defence to rely on any of the known defences. To this end, there was nothing before the Court to indicate that the defamatory words are true and the Court had no other choice but to accept the evidence of the Claimant and act on it.¹³

Conclusively, the Court held that the Claimant adequately established the case for defamation against the Defendants. On the issue of damages, the Court noted that in defamation cases, the law generally presumes damages and that the consequent loss of the Consultancy Contract by the Claimant, is an injury that must be compensated. The Court upheld the case of the Claimant and entered judgment against the Defendants, in the following terms:

1. I hereby order the Defendants jointly and severally to pay the sum of Two Million Naira (₦2,000,000.00) to the Claimant as General Damages for defamation.
2. I hereby order the 1st Defendant to tender an unreserved apology to the Claimant in two (2) Dailies with nationwide spread and to all the Claimant's contacts to whom the libelous publication was made.
3. I hereby order that interest on the judgment sum at the rate of 10% per annum from the date of judgment till the sum is fully liquidated be paid by the Defendants.¹⁴ (Emphasis added)

4. Take Home Lessons from the Decision in Enyigwe's Case

For debtors, the message is clear and straightforward: being indebted to a Loan App or a DML is not a universal license for such an entity to digitally shame the borrower or to smear their reputation, without justifiable legal grounds. The tort of Defamation offers succour to any debtor harassed and/or ridiculed in the digital space by a lender. The following circumstances are common indicators of a lender's harassment of a debtor:

1. Receipt by the debtor of multiple or excessive calls on a daily basis from the lender;
2. Online publication by the lender of the name, phone number(s), Bank Verification Number (BVN), photograph(s) and/or address of the debtor;
3. Receipt by the debtor of messages couched in an abusive or intimidating language;
4. Receipt by the debtor of messages containing threats or promise of harm;
5. Unauthorized contact of family and friends of the debtor by the lender concerning the loan; and
6. Demand by the lender for amounts higher than what was agreed upon by the parties, without a succinct explanation or breakdown of how it was computed.

For Loan Apps and DMLs, Enyigwe's Case is a learning curve. Loan Apps and DMLs must understand that the nature of the relationship between them and a debtor is a civil transaction of "lender and borrower" which does not justify the self-help approach of digitally shaming and damaging the reputation of a borrower.¹⁵ Resort should be had to the recognized avenues sanctioned by law for debt recovery. Under the Digital, Electronic, Online or Non-Traditional Consumer Lending Regulations, 2025, Loan Apps and DMLs are expected to live up to the consumer protection requirements in the digital space by ensuring that:

1. Their operations are conducted in a responsible, professional, and ethical manner;¹⁶
2. Consumers (borrowers) are treated equitably and fairly at all stages of engagement;
3. Unfair terms in consumer lending agreements that may create an imbalance of rights or impose indirect or direct harm on consumers (borrowers), are avoided;
4. Prompt notification is given to consumers (borrowers) regarding any changes in circumstances that may impact the terms of service;
5. All credit advances are provided strictly on an opt-in basis; and
6. There is full disclose of all terms of the lending service to consumers (borrowers), including, but not limited to, interest rates, repayment terms, and associated charges. Modifications to these terms should only be made if it is expressly stated in the consumer lending contract or agreement.

5. Conclusion

Globalization, financial technology and the law must intersect purposively and progressively for business and reputational sanity and sanctity to be maintained in any given society. This reality is a goal that must be pursued in every civilized society. The weaponization of shame in debt recovery by Loan Apps and DMLs is a dark psychological or manipulation tactic that must come to an end. It is in this light that the decision of the Court in Enyigwe's Case deserves commendation. Without doubt, Enyigwe's Case reifies the "watchman" attitude of courts in Nigeria towards the protection of the rights of citizens from harassment and this legal standpoint was well mirrored by the Supreme Court in the leading case of Ajao v. Ashiru,¹⁷ thus:

It cannot be over emphasized to both high and low that every person resident in the country has the right to go about his or her lawful business unmolested or unhampered by anyone else, be it a Government functionary or a private individual. The Courts will frown upon any manifestation of arbitrary power assumed by anyone over another person or the property of another even if that other is suspected of having breached some law or regulation. People must never take laws into their own hands by attempting to enforce what they consider to be their right or entitlement. .... This kind of show of power which is becoming too frequent in our society today must be discouraged by all those who set any store by civilized values.¹⁸ (Emphasis added).

6. Recommendations

The necessary recommendations for borrowers and lenders in the digital debt market in Nigeria are exhaustively set out below.

6.1 Recommendations to Borrowers (turned "Debtors")

A borrower that is debt-shamed, harassed, threatened and/or ridiculed by a Loan App or a DML is not without legal remedies in law. These remedies are available based on constitutional rights, statutory safeguards, regulatory guidelines, and judicial precedents. The following options are open to an aggrieved debtor:

1. Briefing a lawyer to issue a Take-down and Cease and Desist Letter:
   This letter will serve as a pre-action demand letter for redress concerning the published debt-shaming content and will demand a take-down of the defamatory content; a public apology; and/or a cease and desist from further defamatory publication.
2. Petitioning the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission ("FCCPC") for Digital Lending Violations:
   The activities of DMLs are regulated by the FCCPC¹⁹ via the Limited Interim Regulatory/Registration Framework and Guidelines for Digital Lending, 2022 and the Digital, Electronic, Online or Non-Traditional Consumer Lending Regulations, 2025. The borrower can lodge a complaint with the FCCPC via the email address designated for this purpose by the FCCPC, which is, lenderstaskforce@fccpc.gov.ng. Unethical and unlawful conduct like debt-shaming, unauthorized access to contacts, and harassment of debtors can lead to sanctions, suspension, or blacklisting of a Loan App or DML by the FCCPC.
3. Lodging a Complaint with the Nigerian Data Protection Commission ("NDPC"):
   A borrower can submit a petition to the NDPC about data privacy violation by Loan Apps and DMLs and this breach can arise where there is an unauthorized access to phone contacts and photographs of a data subject (the borrower) or a misuse of the personal data of such a data subject.²⁰ The NDPC can fine erring Loan Apps or DMLs and order them to cease unlawful data processing.²¹
4. Taking out a civil action in Defamation (Libel and Slander):
   Once there is a publication of a false statement that injures the reputation of the borrower in the eyes of right-thinking members of society, a suit in defamation becomes a ready option. This false statement includes a situation where a borrower is tagged a "criminal" or a "fraudster", without lawful justification. The borrower, in such a suit, can seek reliefs such as damages, public apology, and injunction to arrest further defamatory publications.
5. Enforcement of the Fundamental Human Rights to Dignity of the Human Person and Privacy:
   An application can be filed in court for the enforcement of the Fundamental Human Rights of the debtor to dignity of the human person and privacy which have been breached, is being breached, or is likely²² to be infringed by a lender.²³ The need for this option arises where the Loan App or DML accesses and disseminates the borrower's contact list or threatens to do so and/or sends or threatens to send humiliating, disparaging or derogatory messages concerning the borrower to third parties.²⁴
6. Action for Breach of Data Privacy:
   The unlawful collection or use of a data subject's phone contacts without his express consent breaches the borrower's constitutional right to privacy contained in section 37 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) and the prescriptions of sections 24, 25 and 26 of the Nigeria Data Protection Act, 2023. This can ground a civil suit for breach of data privacy. Additionally, such a practice violates the Nigeria Data Protection Regulation, 2019 ("NDPR") which provides that personal data must be collected and processed in a lawful and fair manner²⁵ and that data subjects (borrowers) have the right to object to the processing, request deletion, and seek redress for abuse.²⁶
7. Action for Breach of Contract and Unlawful Recovery Methods:
   Where there is a departure by a Loan App or a DML from the agreed recovery terms or where a manipulative tactic, like debt-shaming, is deployed to arm-twist a borrower, an action can be instituted for breach of contract; and injunctive reliefs and damages for consequential loss, if any, can be sought.
8. Lodging a Criminal Complaint for Cyberstalking, Cyberbullying, Harassment, Intimidation and/or Threats:
   Where the circumstances warrant, a criminal complaint can be lodged with the appropriate law enforcement agency against the Loan App and its agents. The offence of Cyberstalking becomes feasible where the message is sent through a computer network or digital means with the knowledge that it is false for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience and/or danger.²⁷ Additionally, the content of the message or publication can amount to all or any of the following offences: cyberbullying;²⁸ causing emotional, verbal and psychological abuse;²⁹ and compelling action by intimidation or threat.³⁰

6.2 Recommendations to Lenders (Loan Apps and Digital Money Lenders)

On the other hand, a Loan App or a DML desirous of recovering the debt owed to it should desist from debt-shaming a borrower. Instead, resort should be had to any of the following options:

1. Briefing a lawyer to issue a Demand Letter to the Borrower and Negotiation:
   This proactive step can be taken to demand that the debtor repay the amount owed within a stipulated time. Depending on how this turns out, it may be followed by negotiation, restructuring of the loan, or settlement discussions.
2. Legal action for Debt Recovery against the Borrower (Litigation):
   A civil action can be initiated in a court of competent jurisdiction for the recovery of the principal loan, the accrued interest and attendant legal cost for taking out the action, where applicable.
3. Resort to Alternative Dispute Resolution ("ADR"):
   Where the loan agreement expressly provides for ADR or where such is mutually agreed by the parties, the Loan App or DML may resort to arbitration, mediation or conciliation, as the case may be.
4. Lodging a Criminal Complaint against the Borrower:
   Where there is proof that the borrower threatened the life of any staff or agent of a Loan App or DML, steps can be taken to petition such a borrower to the appropriate law enforcement agency.
5. Petitioning for Bankruptcy or Winding-up Proceedings:
   In extreme circumstances where the debt is substantial and the borrower, being either an individual or a juristic person, is unable to pay, a Loan App or DML can file for bankruptcy or winding-up proceedings, provided that the statutory prerequisites are met.

Footnotes

1. See the following publications on this issue: Emmanuel Akinwotu, 'Their Weapon is your Shame: Toxic Abuse From Nigeria's Loan Sharks' (The Guardian, 9 March 2022) ( https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/mar/09/their-weapon-is-your-shame-toxic-abuse-from-nigerias-loan-sharks#:~:text=Adebayo%20said%20that%20as%20she,according%20to%20several%20former%20staff.) accessed 2 August 2025; and Sekinat Motunrayo Ojeniyi, 'Nigerians Blackmailed by Loan Apps are Plotting Revenge in Facebook Groups' (Rest of World, 28 April 2023) ( https://restofworld.org/2023/facebook-groups-debt-shaming-nigeria/) accessed 2 August 2025.

2. Unreported Judgment in Suit No. FCT/HC/CV/5074/2023 delivered by Honourable Justice J. Enobie Obanor, J. of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja on 31st October 2024 (hereinafter referred to as "Enyigwe's Case"). This can be accessed via this link: ( https://www.fcthighcourt.gov.ng/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/MR.-PETER-ODANG-ENYIGWE-VS-FASTCREDIT-LIMITED-2-ORS-TORTE-DEFAMATION.pdf) accessed 2 August 2025.

3. Ibid, at p. 6. The phone numbers and Bank Verification Number (BVN) in the quoted message are asterisked by this author to protect the personal details of the Claimant in this case.

4. Reliance was placed on the case of Zenith Bank v. Iyamu (2021) LPELR – 54150 (CA).

5. (2013) LPELR – 2018 (SC) at p. 19, paras. A – C, per Honourable Justice Ngwuta, JSC.

6. See also, Iloabachie v. Iloabachie (2005) 13 NWLR (Pt. 943) 695 (SC); and Concord Press (Nig.) Ltd. v. Olutola (1999) 9 NWLR (Pt. 620) 578.

7. Enyigwe's Case (n3) at p. 7.

8. Ibid.

9. Ibid, at p. 8.

10. Ibid.

11. Ibid.

12. Which includes justification, fair comment and privilege, which may be either absolute or qualified.

13. Enyigwe's Case (n3) at p. 8.

14. Ibid, at p. 9.

15. The law frowns at the use of threat(s), force, self-help and/or a multitude of hands in the recovery of debt. This informs why the law provides debt recovery procedures. In the leading case of Military Governor, Lagos State & Ors. v. Chief Emeka Odumegwu Ojukwu (1986) ANLR 233 at p. 240, Honourable Justice Kayode Eso, JSC, counselled that "...the essence of rule of law is that it should never operate under the rule of force or fear. To use force... is an attempt to infuse timidity into court and operate a sabotage of cherished rule of law. It must never be!" (Emphasis added)

16. See, article 41 of the General Application and Implementation Directive, 2025 ("GAID").

17. (1973) 8 NSSC 525 (SC).

18. Ibid, at p. 533, per Honourable Justice Teslim Olawale Elias, CJN.

19. This is empowered by sections 17(a), (e), (g), (h), (l), (m), (s), (x), (v); 18(3); 123; 124; 127; 129 and 130 of the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Act, 2018 ("FCCPA").

20. See, sections 34(1)(vi) and 46 of the Nigeria Data Protection Act, 2023 ("NDPA"); and article 39 of the GAID.

21. See, section 48 of the NDPA.

22. See the case of Ezeaduakwa v. Maduka (1997) 8 NWLR (Pt. 518) 635 (CA) at pp. 660 – 661, para. A, where the Court of Appeal aptly confirmed this point, thus: "... the Applicant can move to Court to seek for redress immediately he senses some moves on the part of the Respondent to contravene his Fundamental Rights...." (Emphasis added)

23. See, sections 34(1), 37 and 46(1) of the CFRN; and Order II Rule 1 of the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules, 2009. This approach was resorted to by a borrower against a lender in the case of Mrs. Helina Ime Akpandem v. Mrs. Helen Effiong Udeme & Anor. in Suit No. HU/FHR. 410/2022, pending at the High Court of Akwa Ibom State, Uyo Judicial Division ("Akpandem's Case"). The Applicant in Akpandem's Case sought declaratory, injunctive and compensatory reliefs against the Respondents for assaulting her; sending her threat text messages; threatening her via phone calls; and threatening to drag, harass, disgrace and/or publish disparaging words about her and her family on social media platforms and/or print media, over her default in the repayment of a debt owed the 1st Respondent. This author represented the Applicant in Akpandem's Case.

24. See the case of Chijuka v. Maduewesi (2011) ALL FWLR (Pt. 586) 517 (CA), where Honourable Justice Danjuma, JCA, relying on section 46(1) of the CFRN, held: "The said section envisages a situation where a threatened breach or violation of one's fundamental right exists. The breach may be in future, as it may not have occurred but merely in sight or feared." (Emphasis added)

25. See, section 2.1(a) of the NDPR; and articles 15, 16, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 and 26 of the GAID.

26. See, section 2.2 of the NDPR; and articles 38 and 40 of the GAID.

27. See, section 24(1)(b) of the Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, etc.) Act, 2015 ("CPPA").

28. See, section 24(2)(a) and (c) of the CPPA.

29. See, section 14(1) of the Violence Against Persons (Prohibition) Act, 2015 ("VAPPA").

30. See, section 18 of the VAPPA; section 366(a) of the Criminal Code Act; and sections 396, 397 and 398 of the Penal Code, which is applicable in Northern Nigeria.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.