uniBank Ghana Limited
Legal
Legal cases initiated by the Receiver
1.Nii Amanor Dodoo (suing as Receiver of uniBank Ghana Ltd) v Dr Kwabena Duffour & 16 Others. This case started in September 2018.
2.uniBank Ghana Ltd (in receivership) (under the receivership of Nii Amanor Dodoo) v Dr Kwabena Duffour & 9 Others. This case started in July 2019.
A summary of month on month activities per each of the legal cases are as follows:
1.Nii Amanor Dodoo (suing as Receiver of uniBank Ghana Ltd) v Dr Kwabena Duffour & 16 Others. This case started in September 2018.
Background
The Receiver for uniBank, Nii Amanor Dodoo on 12 September 2018 sued 17 shareholders and directors of the defunct bank over the repayment of a GH¢5.7 billion debt. The suit is seeking an order from the court for the preservation of assets acquired by the defendants through the unlawful use of uniBank’s funds, return and/or transfer of all the assets listed in the documents attached to the case to the Receiver and the repayment of amounts owed by the shareholders, related and connected parties.
The 17 shareholders and directors sued are as follows:
| # | Name | Defendant |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Dr. Kwabena Duffuor | 1st Defendant |
| 2 | HODA Holding Limited | 2nd Defendant |
| 3 | HODA Properties Limited | 3rd Defendant |
| 4 | Integrated Properties Limited | 4th Defendant |
| 5 | Alban Logistics Limited | 5th Defendant |
| 6 | StarLife Assurance | 6th Defendant |
| 7 | Bolton Portfolio Limited | 7th Defendant |
| 8 | Dr. Kwabena Duffuor II | 8th Defendant |
| 9 | Opoku-Gyamfi Boateng | 9th Defendant |
| 10 | Prof. Newman Kwadwo-Kusi | 10th Defendant |
| 11 | Owusu Ansah Awere | 11th Defendant |
| 12 | Ekow Nyarko Dadzie-Dennis | 12th Defendant |
| 13 | Clifford Duke Mettle** | 13th Defendant |
| 14 | Boatemaa Kakra Duffuor-Nyarko | 14th Defendant |
| 15 | Kofi Kyereh Darkwah | 15th Defendant |
| 16 | Nana Boakye Asafu-Adjaye | 16th Defendant |
| 17 | Alex Gaddiel Buabeng | 17th Defendant |
Summary of key month on month activities carried out on the case from September till date are as follows:
September 2018
| Date of Key Legal Action | Activity Description |
|---|---|
| 4 September | - The lawyer for the Receiver (ENS) initiates court action on behalf of the Receiver against 17 defendants. - Application for preservation is filed together with Writ of Summons. |
| 11 September | - Prof. Raymond Atuguba of Atuguba & Associates enters conditional appearance for 1st and 4th Defendants. - Yaw D. Oppong of Ampofo, Oppong & Associates enters conditional appearance on behalf of 8th, 11th, 12th and 13th Defendants. |
| 13 September | - Opoku Amponsah of Fugar & Company files “Notice of Conditional Appearance” on behalf of 13th Defendant. - Tony Lithur of Lithur Brew & Company files “Notice of Entry of Conditional Appearance” on behalf of 16th Defendant. |
| 14 September | - Kwesi Fynn of Business Law Group files “Notice of Appearance” on behalf of 6th Defendant. |
| 17 September | - 7th Defendant files “Notice of Entry of Conditional Appearance”. - 9th Defendant files “Notice of Entry of Conditional Appearance”. |
| 18 September | - Yaw D. Oppong files “Notice of Withdrawal” of conditional appearance on behalf of 8th, 11th, 12th and 13th Defendants. |
| 19 September | - Kwame Agati of Law Offices of Kwame Agati files “Notice of Appointment of lawyer” for 9th and 17th Defendants. - Kwame Agati files notice of appearance for 15th Defendant. - First court attendance for hearing of application for preservation orders, however, the hearing was adjourned because lawyers for 1st and 4th Defendants indicated that /they intend to challenge the capacity of the Receiver. |
| 24 September | - Lawyers for 13th Defendant file application “to strike out 13th Defendant for Misjoinder”. |
| 25 September | - Lawyers for 2nd, 3rd, 5th and 7th Defendants file Application to set aside Writ of Summons. |
| 28 September | - Court grants application to remove 13th Defendant as a party. |
October 2018
| Date of Key Legal Action | Activity Description |
|---|---|
| 12 October | - Court attendance for application to set aside Writ of Summons by 1st and 4th Defendants. The case was subsequently adjourned to 26 October. - 8th, 10th and 14th Defendants file Statement of Defence and Counter-Claim |
| 25 October | - Lawyers for the Receiver, ENS, file opposition to application by 1st and 4th Defendants to set aside Writ of Summons - Lawyers for 16th Defendant file application to strike out Plaintiff’s pleadings against 16th Defendant. |
| 26 October | - Court attendance to determine if all processes have been served on the parties. The case was adjourned to 9 November. - Lawyers for the Receiver, ENS, file opposition to application by 2nd, 3rd, 5th and 7th Defendants to set aside Writ of Summons. |
| 31 October | - Lawyers for 8th, 10th and 14th Defendants file application for Default Judgment - Lawyers for 1st and 4th Defendants file “skeletal written address” in support of application to set aside Writ of Summons - Supplementary Affidavit in favour of application to set aside Writ of Summons filed on behalf of 2nd, 3rd, 5th and 7th Defendants. - Lawyers for 2nd, 3rd, 5th and 7th Defendants file “Written Submissions” in support of application to set aside the Writ of Summons |
November 2018
| Date of Key Legal Action | Activity Description |
|---|---|
| 8 November | - Supplementary affidavit in support of application to set aside Writ of Summons filed on behalf of 1st and 4th Defendants - Lawyers for the Receiver file written submission in opposition to application by 1st and 4th Defendants to set aside Writ of Summons. - Parties attend court for further directions on pending motions. Tsatsu Tsikata announces himself as “lawyer” for the 1st and 4th Defendants to which lawyers for the Receiver object to. The court directs Tsatsu Tsikata to formalise his entry into the case. - Court adjourns application for default judgment filed on behalf of 8th, 10th and 14th Defendants. The court also adjourns application filed on behalf of the 16th Defendant (to set aside the Writ of Summons in relation to him) until applications to set aside Writ of Summons have been determined |
| 14 November | - Lawyers for the Receiver receive request for further and better particulars from lawyers for 9th, 15th and 17th Defendants. |
| 22 November | - Lawyers for 6th Defendant file Written Submissions in support of applications to set aside Writ of Summons |
| 27 November | - Receiver’s lawyers respond to request for further and better particulars by lawyers for 9th, 15th and 17th Defendants. |
| 29 November | - Court attendance to confirm that all written submissions have been filed. Tsatsu Tsikata announces himself again as “lawyer” for the 1st and 4th Defendants, and refers to a letter written by Prof. Raymond Atuguba indicating that he has been appointed as counsel. Lawyers for the Receiver repeat objection. - Court indicates that there will be no oral submissions regarding the applications to set aside the Writ of Summon. - Case adjourned to 11 December for ruling on the objection for an indication of deadline for filing of any additional submissions regarding applications to set aside Writ of Summons. |
December 2018
| Date of Key Legal Action | Activity Description |
|---|---|
| 11 December | - The Court gave a ruling upholding the objection raised by lawyers for the Receiver that Tsatsu Tsikata cannot announce himself as “Counsel” in the case. - The Court also ordered parties to file any further Written Submissions on or before 21 December 2018. - The Court adjourned the case to 27 February 2019 for ruling on applications to set aside the Writ of Summons. |
| 21 December | - Lawyers for the Receiver filed “Additional Written Submissions” in opposition to applications by the 1st and 4th Defendants seeking to set aside Writ of Summons (pursuant to order of the Court dated 11 December 2018. |
January 2019
| Date of Key Legal Action | Activity Description |
|---|---|
| 15 January | - Lawyer for the 2nd, 3rd, 5th and 7th Defendants filed written submissions in support of the application to set aside Writ of Summons pursuant to order of the Court dated 11 December 2018, which required parties to file any further written submissions on or before 21 December 2018. |
| 28 January | - New lawyer (Kissi Agyebeng) was appointed to represent 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th and 7th Defendants. He replaced Prof. Raymond Atuguba for the 2nd, 3rd, 5th and 7th defendants; and Daniyal Abdul Karim for the 1st and 4th defendants. A notice of change of lawyers was filed to this effect. |
| 29 January | - Lawyer for 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th and 7th Defendants filed a notice of withdrawal of the application to set aside Writ of Summons and Statement of Claim |
| 31 January | - Lawyer for 8th, 10th and 14th Defendants filed a motion for an order to join the Attorney General (AG) as 18th Defendant (joinder application) to the case. |
February 2019
| Date of Key Legal Action | Activity Description |
|---|---|
| 12 February | - The application by the lawyer for the 8th, 10th and 14th Defendants to join the Attorney General (AG) as 18th Defendant (joinder application) to the case was adjourned to 13 March 2019. The sitting judge indicated that due to the nature of the application, her preference was for the substantive judge to hear the application. |
| 19 February | - Lawyer for 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th and 7th Defendants filed an application for an order to be granted against the Receiver to produce specific documents. |
March 2019
| Date of Key Legal Action | Activity Description |
|---|---|
| 4 March | - Court hearing of an application for the Receiver to produce documents, adjourned to 13 March 2019 for substantive judge. |
| 5 March | - The Attorney General (AG) files an affidavit in opposition to joinder application. |
| 13 March | - Lawyers for the Receiver file an affidavit in opposition to AG joinder application. - Lawyers for the Receiver file another affidavit in opposition to application for an order to produce documents. - Court hearing of the joinder application and application for order to produce documents. - Case adjourned to 15 March 2019 for ruling on both applications. The Court indicated that there will be no oral submissions and any party that wants to ‘urge law’ on the court will have to file written arguments. |
| 15 March | - Lawyer for 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th and 7th Defendants files written submission in support of application for order to produce documents - Lawyers for the Receiver file separate written submissions in opposition to the joinder application and application for order to produce documents. - Court adjourns briefly to read various submissions filed in respect of the joinder application and the application for order to produce documents. The case is recalled and the Court delivers its ruling. The joinder application is granted. But the AG is joined as a defendant to counterclaim. The Court orders that the Writ of Summons should be amended to reflect the change in parties. The Court refuses the application for an order to produce documents. The case is adjourned to 9 April 2019 for hearing of application for judgment in default of defence (in counterclaim) and for further directions on all pending applications. |
April 2019
| Date of Key Legal Action | Activity Description |
|---|---|
| 9 April | - There is court attendance for hearing of the application for judgement in default of defence (to counterclaim). - Lawyers for the Receiver had earlier filed an application to strike out the Defence and Counterclaim, however, this application had not been served on all parties to the case. The case is adjourned to 18 April with lawyers for the Receiver directed to ensure the processes are served on all parties to the case. |
| 18 April | - There is court attendance to hear the application to strike out the Defence and Counterclaim. Lawyer for 8th, 10th and 14th Defendants stated he had filed an affidavit in opposition to the Receiver’s lawyer’s motion to strike out the Defence and Counterclaim. This affidavit had however, not been served on the Receiver's lawyers. - The Court gives timelines for parties to take the under listed steps: ✓ 25 April – Deadline for lawyer for 8th, 10th and 14th defendants to file affidavit in opposition to the Receiver’s application for interim preservation; and deadline for parties to file written submissions on application to strike out defence and counterclaim. ✓ 29 April – Deadline for lawyer for 16th Defendant to file written submissions ✓ 3 May – Deadline for Receiver’s lawyers to file written submissions on application by lawyer for the 16th Defendant to have his client struck out as a Defendant. ✓ 13 May – Court to give its ruling on Receiver’s application to strike out defence and counterclaim and the application to strike out the 16th Defendant as a party to the case. - The Court adjourns to 13th May for a ruling on the application to strike out the Defence and Counterclaim. |
May 2019
| Date of Key Legal Action | Activity Description |
|---|---|
| 3 May | - Lawyers for the Receiver filed additional written submissions in support of the application to strike out amended defence and counterclaim of the 8th, 10th, and 14th Defendants. - A court hearing was fixed for a ruling on the Receiver’s application to strike out the amended defence and counterclaim of the 8th, 10th, and 14th Defendants. The Court was however unable to deliver its ruling because lawyer for the 8th, 10th and 14th Defendants only filed their written submissions on 30 April. Lawyers for the Receiver were unable to file a response before the court hearing date. - Lawyers for the Receiver also asked the Court orally, for leave to amend the writ of summons, to take out a relief inadvertently inserted. The court requested that lawyers for the Receiver file the appropriate process seeking this order. - Lawyer for the 16th Defendant could not file their written submissions as ordered by the Court. He informed the Court that this will be done by 6 May 2019. - Case was adjourned to 13 May 2019 for parties to comply with the orders of the Court. |
| 10 May | - Lawyers for the Receiver filed application to amend writ of summons and statement of claim as requested by court on 3 May 2019. - Lawyer for 8th, 10th and 14th Defendants, files supplementary written statement in opposition to application by lawyers for the Receiver to set aside counterclaim. - Lawyer for 1st Defendant files affidavit in opposition to the Receiver’s application for an order of inspection, detention, interim preservation of uniBank’s assets and the appointment of a Receiver and Manager for the assets attached to the case. |
| 13 May | - 3 May Lawyers for the Receiver filed additional written submissions in support of the application to strike out amended defence and counterclaim of the 8th, 10th, and 14th Defendants. - A court hearing was fixed for a ruling on the Receiver’s application to strike out the amended defence and counterclaim of the 8th, 10th, and 14th Defendants. The Court was however unable to deliver its ruling because lawyer for the 8th, 10th and 14th Defendants only filed their written submissions on 30 April. Lawyers for the Receiver were unable to file a response before the court hearing date. - Lawyers for the Receiver also asked the Court orally, for leave to amend the writ of summons, to take out a relief inadvertently inserted. The court requested that lawyers for the Receiver file the appropriate process seeking this order. - Lawyer for the 16th Defendant could not file their written submissions as ordered by the Court. He informed the Court that this will be done by 6 May 2019. - Case was adjourned to 13 May 2019 for parties to comply with the orders of the Court. - 10 May Lawyers for the Receiver filed application to amend writ of summons and statement of claim as requested by court on 3 May 2019. - Lawyer for 8th, 10th and 14th Defendants, files supplementary written statement in opposition to application by lawyers for the Receiver to set aside counterclaim. - Lawyer for 1st Defendant files affidavit in opposition to the Receiver’s application for an order of inspection, detention, interim preservation of uniBank’s assets and the appointment of a Receiver and Manager for the assets attached to the case. |
| 16 May | - Lawyer for 6th Defendant, filed written submissions against application to strike out the counterclaims of the 8th, 10th and 14th Defendants. - Lawyer for 8th Defendant, filed affidavit in opposition to Receiver’s application for an order of inspection, detention, interim preservation of uniBank’s assets and the appointment of a Receiver and Manager for the assets attached to the case. |
| 17 May | - Lawyer for 16th Defendant, filed written submissions on their application to have the 16th Defendant struck out as a party. - Court hearing was fixed for a ruling on the application to strike out parts of the defence, and the counterclaim of the 8th, 10th, and 14th Defendants. - The court gave its ruling, granting the application in part. The court held that it agreed with the Plaintiff/Applicant (Receiver’s) assertion that some of the reliefs sought in the counterclaim challenged decisions of the Bank of Ghana, hence, the court was not the appropriate forum. The court referred the parties to arbitration and appointed Date-Bah as the arbitrator. The Plaintiff was ordered to file a defence to the remaining reliefs. Counsel for the 16th Defendant told the court that they were in the process of filing their written submission. |
| 21 May | - Lawyer for 6th Defendant filed their Statement of Defence. - The court heard Plaintiff’s application seeking leave of the court to amend the writ of summons and statement of claim. No opposition was filed, and the request was granted by the court. - Lawyer for 6th Defendant filed affidavit in opposition to Receiver’s application for an order of inspection, detention, interim preservation of uniBank’s assets and the appointment of a Receiver and Manager for the assets attached to the case. - Lawyers for the Receiver filed written submissions in support of application for an order of inspection, detention, interim preservation of uniBank’s assets and the appointment of a Receiver and Manager for the assets attached to the case. - Lawyer for 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th and 7th Defendants filed application for judgement in Default of Defence to their counterclaim. |
| 22 May | - Lawyer for 6th Defendant filed affidavit in opposition to Receiver’s application for an order of inspection, detention, interim preservation of uniBank’s assets and the appointment of a Receiver and Manager for the assets attached to the case. |
| 27 May | - Lawyers for the Receiver filed written submissions in support of application for an order of inspection, detention, interim preservation of uniBank’s assets and the appointment of a Receiver and Manager for the assets attached to the case. |
| 28 May | - Lawyer for 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th and 7th Defendants filed application for judgement in Default of Defence to their counterclaim. |
June 2019
| Date of Key Legal Action | Activity Description |
|---|---|
| 3 June | - Lawyers for the Receiver filed supplementary affidavit in support of application for an order of inspection, detention, interim preservation of uniBank’s assets and the appointment of a Receiver and Manager for the assets attached to the case. Lawyer for 6th Defendant filed written submissions in opposition to the same application. - Lawyer for 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th and 7th Defendants filed an application for Interlocutory Injunction. |
| 4 June | - Ruling on the application for an order of inspection, detention, interim preservation of uniBank’s assets and the appointment of a Receiver and Manager for the assets attached to the case was scheduled to be delivered. - The ruling was however not delivered. This was because the Judge said from her reading of Act 930, she had an issue that she needed the parties to address her on. - In her view, based on her reading of the Act and practice in other jurisdictions, Receivers take legal actions in the name of the entity for which they act. In this case, since UniBank was still in existence, she was of the opinion that suing in the name of UniBank might have been more appropriate. - Lawyer for Plaintiff explained that Act 930 provided the legal basis for a Receiver under the Act to sue in his name and indicate his representative capacity - Parties were ordered to file written submissions on the issue, and the case was adjourned to 13 June 2019 |
| 6 June | - Lawyers for Receiver filed an interlocutory appeal at the Court of Appeal, challenging the High Court Judge’s decision referring the matter to arbitration. |
| 18 June | - Lawyers for Receiver filed an injunction restraining the Defendants and the court appointed arbitrator from commencing and conducting arbitration proceedings pursuant to ruling on interlocutory appeal filed at Court of Appeal. - Lawyers for Receiver wrote to the administrator of Ghana Arbitration Centre to decline the invitation to arbitration on behalf of Receiver on basis that he is not the correct party to be engaged on the matters referred by the High Court to arbitration. |
July 2019
| Date of Key Legal Action | Activity Description |
|---|---|
| 4 July | - The Judge delivered her ruling dismissing the action. In her view, Nii Amanor Dodoo as the Receiver did not have capacity to sue, and since the Receiver did not have capacity to sue at the time the action was commenced, every step taken in the matter is null and void. The judge however went on to save the arbitration proceedings which she had earlier ruled on. |
| 22 July | - The Receiver wrote to inform the Arbitrator of his decision not to participate in the arbitration proceedings as he was not the right party to the case and the process was directed without his consent. - The 2nd Arbitration Management meeting took place without the consent and participation of the Receiver. |
| 29 July | - Timelines were given to the parties to the arbitration to address the Arbitrator on a host of questions, including the lawfulness of the appointment of the Arbitrator and the power of the High Court to appoint an Arbitrator. |
August 2019
| Date of Key Legal Action | Activity Description |
|---|---|
| 2 August | - Lawyer for 10th and 14th Claimant in the court-ordered arbitration, filed written submission on questions raised by the court-ordered arbitrator regarding the lawfulness of his appointment and the arbitral proceedings (in Procedural Order 2) on behalf of his client and “with the consent” of the other Claimants. |
September 2019
| Date of Key Legal Action | Activity Description |
|---|---|
| 11 September | - Written submission on preliminary issues (regarding reference of aspects of the case to arbitration by the High Court) filed by the 2nd Respondent (Attorney-General) pursuant to order of the Arbitrator made at the second arbitration management conference, held on 22 July 2019. |
2. uniBank Ghana Ltd (in receivership) (under the receivership of Nii Amanor Dodoo) v Dr Kwabena Duffour & 9 Others. This case started in July 2019.
Background
The Receiver filed a new suit on 9 July 2019 in the name of uniBank Ghana Limited (in receivership) in line with the judgment of the High Court in Nii Amanor Dodoo v Dr Kwabena Duffour & 16 Others, which basically ruled that a civil action by a bank in receivership must be instituted in the name of the bank in receivership.
The substance of the new suit remained the same. uniBank (in receivership) is seeking an order from the court for the preservation of assets acquired by the defendants through the unlawful use of uniBank’s funds, return and/or transfer of all the assets listed in the documents attached to the case to the Receiver and the repayment of amounts owed by the shareholders, related and connected parties.
A strategic decision was made to exclude seven defendants named in the previous case and to focus the suit on directors and entities identified as centrally responsible for losses to the bank. This approach serves to avoid delays in resolution of the substantive matter by preliminary applications as was experienced in the previous case.
The 10 shareholders and directors sued are as follows:
| # | Name | Defendant |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Dr. Kwabena Duffuor | 1st Defendant |
| 2 | HODA Holding Limited | 2nd Defendant |
| 3 | HODA Properties Limited | 3rd Defendant |
| 4 | Integrated Properties Limited | 4th Defendant |
| 5 | Alban Logistics Limited | 5th Defendant |
| 6 | StarLife Assurance | 6th Defendant |
| 7 | Bolton Portfolio Limited | 7th Defendant |
| 8 | Dr. Kwabena Duffuor II | 8th Defendant |
| 9 | Ekow Nyarko Dadzie-Dennis | 9th Defendant |
| 10 | Boatemaa Kakra Duffour-Nyarko | 10th Defendant |
Summary of key month on month activities carried out on the case from July till date are as follows:
July 2019
| Date of Key Legal Action | Activity Description |
|---|---|
| 9 July | - Lawyers for the Receiver recommenced legal action by filing a new Writ of Summons and Statement of Claim. |
| 22 July | - Lawyer for 1st, 4th, 6th, and 10th Defendants entered conditional appearance. - The Receiver wrote to inform Arbitrator of decision not to participate in the arbitration proceedings as the arbitration proceedings were taking place without his consent. - The 2nd Arbitration Management Conference took place without the consent of the Receiver. |
| 24 July | - Lawyer for 2nd, 3rd, 5th, 7th, and 8th Defendants entered appearance. |
August 2019
There were no activity performed in the month of August as the court was on break
September 2019
| Date of Key Legal Action | Activity Description |
|---|---|
| 18 September | - The Receiver was served with a motion on notice for an order of interlocutory injunction filed by the 2nd, 3rd, 5th,7th and 8th Defendants in the case. The application for injunction seeks to restrain the Receiver from, among other things, taking over and possessing a property located at East Ridge Residential Area, Kenyatta Road/Modibo Keita Close of which uniBank has title to. The application for the injunction is on the basis that the validity of the revocation of uniBank’s banking licence and appointment of the Receiver are matters before arbitration, which are yet to be determined. The motion is to be moved on 10 October 2019. |