High Court rejects majority of WIN candidates’ claims against Citizens Bank

…ordered each party to bear own legal costs

The High Court has dismissed the majority of claims brought by three members of the We Invest in Nationhood (WIN) party against Citizens Bank Guyana Inc over the closure of their bank accounts, ruling that the bank was legally entitled to terminate the banking relationship but failed to provide adequate notice before doing so. In a ruling handed down on Thursday, Justice Nigel Niles found that although the bank acted within its contractual rights to end the relationship with the customers, the immediate termination of the accounts and the requirement that the customers uplift their funds within five days did not satisfy the legal requirement for “reasonable notice.”
The consolidated matters involved applicants Amin Britton, Racquel King and Mark Goring, all members of the WIN party, whose accounts were terminated by the bank in July 2025. According to the ruling, the applicants received letters from managers at the bank’s Linden, Region 10 and Mandela Avenue, Georgetown branches informing them that the bank had reviewed its relationship with them and decided to terminate their accounts because they “no longer conform to the bank’s risk appetite.” The letters instructed the applicants to collect manager’s cheques representing the balances on their accounts within five working days.
The applicants subsequently filed Fixed Date Applications (FDAs) seeking several declarations from the court. Among the declarations sought were findings that the WIN party is separate from its members, that the bank acted unlawfully and discriminatorily, and that the bank breached obligations of good faith, trust, and confidence owed to them. They also alleged that the bank violated provisions of the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering the Financing of Terrorism (AML/CFT) Act. The applicants further sought damages exceeding $100 million, including exemplary and aggravated damages. In its defence, Citizens Bank argued that it was not obligated to disclose the precise basis upon which customers are assessed as high or low risk and maintained that the banker-customer relationship is fundamentally contractual in nature. The bank contended that it could terminate that relationship for risk-related reasons, or even without reason, once the contractual requirements were satisfied. The bank also denied owing fiduciary duties such as trust, confidence and good faith to customers and argued that customers similarly have the right to close their accounts without explanation.
Additionally, the bank told the court that the applicants became politically exposed persons and were deemed higher-risk customers because of their association with sanctioned WIN leader Mohamed Azruddin. According to the bank, this association elevated concerns surrounding money laundering risks and correspondent banking relationships. Justice Niles examined several legal authorities governing the banker-customer relationship, including the longstanding principle that the relationship is one of debtor and creditor rather than trustee and beneficiary.
The judge noted that common law authorities recognise a bank’s right to terminate a banking relationship provided that reasonable notice is given. He referenced the case of Joachimson v Swiss Bank Corporation, in which the court held that a bank should not cease doing business with a customer except upon reasonable notice.
The ruling also relied on international authorities, including Bredenkamp & Others v Standard Bank of South Africa Ltd, where the court held that fairness alone is not sufficient to invalidate the lawful exercise of a contractual right. Justice Niles noted that banks are not generally required to establish “good cause” before closing accounts, provided they comply with notice requirements and do not violate constitutional or public policy principles. The court further referred to the Guyana Association of Bankers’ Code of Banking Practice, which permits banks to close customer accounts once reasonable notice is provided and the customer is given access to the remaining balance. While accepting that Citizens Bank had the legal right to terminate the accounts, Justice Niles found that the manner in which the bank exercised that right was problematic. “The letters issued by Citizens Bank purported to invoke the bank’s right of termination and to close the accounts with ‘immediate effect,’ affording the account holders a period of only five (5) days within which to collect their funds,” the judge stated. The court held that the five-day period was insufficient to constitute reasonable notice, especially since there had been no findings of illegal activity or suspicious transactions involving the applicants’ accounts. Justice Niles noted that although the applicants had been classified as high-risk customers due to political affiliation and association with an Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC)-sanctioned individual, this alone did not justify immediate termination without adequate notice. As a result, the bank was found to be in breach of contract at common law for failing to provide reasonable notice.

Rejected
However, the court rejected the applicants’ claims under the AML/CFT Act, ruling that private citizens do not have standing to sue for alleged breaches of the legislation. Justice Niles held that enforcement powers under the Act belong to regulatory authorities such as the Bank of Guyana and the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP). The judge further found that the AML/CFT provisions relied upon by the applicants were not applicable because the bank’s decision was based on a risk assessment and not on any suspicion of criminal conduct, money laundering, or terrorist financing that would trigger statutory reporting obligations.
The court also dismissed arguments that Citizens Bank owed duties of good faith and mutual trust and confidence to the applicants. Justice Niles ruled that such obligations are not generally implied into commercial banking contracts and emphasised that courts have consistently recognised the banker-customer relationship as a commercial debtor-creditor arrangement rather than a fiduciary one. Additionally, the court rejected claims that Citizens Bank was subject to judicial or quasi-judicial review, noting that private commercial banks are not public bodies and therefore are not subject to public law remedies ordinarily available against state entities. Justice Niles also ruled that the applicants could not rely on principles of natural justice and procedural fairness because those doctrines generally apply to public law matters rather than private contractual disputes between customers and a private bank. In the final disposition, the court refused the majority of the declarations sought by the applicants, held that the AML/CFT Act had no applicability on the facts of the case, and ruled that Citizens Bank was not subject to judicial review.
Despite those findings, the court awarded each applicant nominal damages of $50,000 after finding that the bank breached the contract by failing to provide reasonable notice before terminating the accounts. The court noted that the applicants had failed to establish any measurable financial loss or injury arising from the closures.
Justice Niles also ordered that each party bear its own legal costs.