DANIEL OFORI v. ECOBANK GHANA LTD
May 6, 2026
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- AMADU JSC (PRESIDING)
- ADJEI-FRIMPONG JSC
- DZAMEFE JSC
- BARTELS-KODWO JSC
- AMALEBOBA JSC
May 6, 2026
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
Try asking the following...
On the 13th day of May 2021, the Applicant applied to this court for an order setting aside the Respondent’s Notice of Amended Entry of Judgment filed on 6th April 2021.
The application was anchored essentially on the claim that, the Respondent had miscalculated the amounts due him on the principal investments and the interest thereon as per his Amended Entry of Judgment dated 6th April 2021. The Respondent contended that by the commulative effect of the substantive judgment and rulings on interest by the Supreme Court, the interest payable on his investment was 30% compounded monthly. This when calculated gave him a figure of GHC142,623,613.25. This figure attracted interest of 13,34% and when calculated in accordance with of the decisions of the Supreme Court the total amount due and owing as at that date came to GHC151,018,312.85.
The Applicant’s position was that the compound interest awarded by the Supreme Court was to be compounded annually and not monthly. When annual compound interest is used for the calculation the figure comes to GHC89,852,411.88. If the interest rate of 13.34% is applied to this figure the total amount due and owing at that date was GHC96,304,972.41. The Applicant admitted that the judgment debt was GHC96,304,972.41 and not the figure that was endorsed on the Amended Entry of Judgment by the Respondent.
On the
AI Generated Summary
The Supreme Court of Ghana resolved a post-judgment dispute over how to compute pre-judgment compound interest on an investment of Gh a26,162,240.00 made on 2 June 2008. The bank (the 1st Defendant/Applicant) urged annual compounding, relying on prior statements and a Bank of Ghana (BoG) recommendation; the investor (the Plaintiff/Respondent) argued for monthly compounding, citing the banks own publicly available tools and industry practice. After earlier directions, BoG opined that there was no industry standard and, absent agreement, recommended annual compounding due to the long duration. The Court treated BoGs view as non-binding expert opinion lacking equitable justification. Applying Section 177 of the Evidence Act and principles of usage of trade and estoppel, the Court held the bank to its public representations of monthly compounding and rejected annual compounding. It further reaffirmed that, after 25 July 2018, the judgment debt accrues simple interest at 13.34% until final payment, and it excluded mediation communications as privileged under Section 105.