The Beige Bank Limited
Legal
Legal cases initiated by the Receiver
3. The Beige Bank Limited (In Receivership, under the Receivership of Nii Amanor Dodoo) v Michael Nyinaku & 12 ORS. This case started in June 2019.
Background
The Receiver commenced a civil suit on 14 June 2019 against the former Chief Executive Officer/shareholder and affiliate companies of the defunct Beige Bank for the repayment of GH¢1.42 billion due the Bank. The suit sought an order from the court for the interim preservation of assets acquired by the defendants through the unlawful use of Beige Bank’s funds, return and/or transfer of all the assets listed in the documents attached to the suit to the Receiver and the repayment of amounts owed by the defendants.
The 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th, 9th and 11th Defendants in the matter filed an application to strike out the writ on the basis that the Receiver did not have capacity to bring the action in his own name. On 30 July 2019, the court granted the application to strike out the action, holding that the Receiver did not institute the action properly by bringing it in his name.
The Beige Bank (in Receivership, under the Receivership of Nii Amanor Dodoo) refiled the Writ of Summons, Statement of Claim and application for interim preservation order on 31 July 2019.
Summary of key month on month activities carried out on the case from June till date are as follows:
June 2019
Date of Key Legal Activity | Activity Description |
---|---|
14 June | - Commencement of civil suit at Accra High Court (Commercial Court 10) by Bentsi- Enchill, Letsa & Ankomah on behalf of the Receiver in the name of Nii Amanor Dodoo vs Michael Nyinaku & 12 Ors. |
18 June | - Bentsi-Enchill, Letsa & Ankomah (lawyers for the defunct Beige Bank) filed an ex parte application for the joinder of The Beige Bank Limited (In Receivership) to the suit as 2nd Plaintiff. |
19 June | - The ex-parte application for joinder of The Beige Bank Limited (In Receivership) to the suit as 2nd Plaintiff was granted by the judge. |
July 2019
Date of Key Legal Activity | Activity Description |
---|---|
4 July | - The judge adjourned hearing of the application for interim preservation to 17 July 2019 for all parties to file and serve their written submissions and for the judge to give a date for her ruling on the Plaintiffs’ application. |
17 July | - Lawyer for 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th 9th and 11th Defendants filed an application to strike out the suit. The date set for the ruling on the application for interim preservation was therefore adjourned to 22 July 2019 to allow all the parties file their written submissions and for the judge to give a date for her ruling on the application to strike out the suit. |
22 July | - The case was adjourned to 30 July 2019 for the judge to deliver her ruling on lawyer for 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th 9th and 11th Defendants’ application to strike out the suit. |
30 July | - The court granted the application to strike out the suit and held that the issue of capacity of the Receiver to issue a writ can be raised at any time and not necessarily during trial. The judge further held that the fact that the Receiver assumed the rights and duties of a member does not mean that he can sue as a member and that instituting the action as a member would mean derogating from his powers as a Receiver. The judge held that since the Receiver did not institute the action properly, the joinder of The Beige Bank to the action cannot cure the defect and struck out the action as void |
31 July | - The lawyers for Beige Bank refiled the Writ of Summons, Statement of Claim and application for interim preservation to reflect Beige Bank Ltd (in receivership under the receivership of Nii Amanor Dodoo) as the only Plaintiff |
August 2019
Date of Key Legal Activity | Activity Description |
---|---|
15 August | - Bentsi-Enchill, Letsa & Ankomah (counsel for the Plaintiff) was in court on 15 August 2019. Lawyer for the 1st Defendant informed the court that the 1st Defendant had been short-served with the Plaintiff’s application for interim preservation as well as the fact that they had entered appearance for the 1st Defendant on 14 August 2019. Lawyers for the Plaintiff informed the court that they had not been able to serve the 6th, 8th and 13th Defendants with the application for interim preservation and prayed the court for a two week adjournment to do so. Accordingly, the matter was adjourned to 3 September 2019. |
September 2019
Date of Key Legal Activity | Activity Description |
---|---|
3 September | - Lawyers for the Receiver were in court on 3 September 2019, subsequent to an adjournment on 15 August 2019 of the Receiver’s application for an order for interim preservation of property. The Receiver’s lawyers informed the court that the Receiver had been served with an application filed by the 1st Defendant for an order to strike out the Writ and Statement of Claim with the return date being 18th September 2019. They further indicated to the court that due to the nature of the 1st Defendant’s application, the hearing of the application for interim preservation should be deferred until the 1st Defendant’s application is determined. Accordingly, the matter was adjourned to 18th September 2019. |
18 September | - Lawyers for the Receiver were informed by the court clerk that he had been directed by the judge to adjourn the matter to a date in October. It was agreed with counsel for the Defendant’s that the matter be adjourned to 10th October 2019. |