JOHN OFORI v. BANK OF GHANA & ORS
2021
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
- MARGARET WELBOURNE, JA (PRESIDING)
- AMMA GAISIE, JA
- ARYENE, JA
Areas of Law
- Administrative Law
- Civil Procedure
- Banking and Finance Law
2021
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
Novisi Aryene, JA, delivered the Court of Appeal’s judgment on an appeal from the High Court (Commercial Division) arising out of the Central Bank’s revocation of UT Bank’s license under Act 930, the subsequent Purchase and Assumption Agreement with the 4th Defendant bank, and the appointment of the 2nd and 3rd Defendants as Receivers. The Plaintiff, a UT Bank shareholder, sought declarations that the Central Bank’s acts were unlawful and ultra vires, cancellation of the transaction, and an injunction restraining the Receivers. The trial court, on an Order 9 rule 8 application, set aside the writ for want of jurisdiction. On appeal, the Court of Appeal held the reliefs were in substance a judicial review of a public body’s decision and must be commenced by judicial review or appropriate originating summons, not by writ. The court rejected the “public interest” framing, found injunctive relief alone not maintainable without a substantive claim, affirmed the High Court, and awarded costs of GHȼ5,000 to the Respondents. Welbourne, JA (Presiding) and Gaisie, JA concurred.
JUDGMENT
ARYENE, JA
This is an appeal against the ruling of the High Court (Commercial Court Division) delivered on 30th November 2017. The facts of this case are simple. Pursuant to the Banks and Specialized Deposit-Taking Institutions Act of 2016, (Act 930), 1st Defendant revoked the banking license of UT Bank of which Plaintiff is a shareholder. The Central Bank then entered into a Purchase and Assumption Agreement with 4th Defendant by which the latter took over all deposits and liabilities and selected assets of the UT Bank. 1st Defendant also appoint 2nd and 3rd Defendants as Receivers.
In this judgment, Plaintiff/Appellant will be referred to as Plaintiff and the Defendants/Respondents as Defendants.
Aggrieved by the action of 1st Defendant, Plaintiff issued a Writ of Summons against the Defendants seeking the following reliefs:
1. A declaration that on a true and proper interpretation of section 123 of the Banks and Specialized Deposit-Taking Institutions Act of 2016, (Act 930), the 1st Defendant acted unlawfully and in ultra vires its powers when it appointed two (2) persons as Receivers when it should have appointed only a Receiver.
2. A declaration that the 1st Defendant acted unlawfully and ultra vires its powers when it entered into a purchase and assumption transaction with the 4th Defendant bank to have control over the assets and liabilities of UT Bank in which the Plaintiff is a shareholder.
3. A declaration that the unlawful entry into the purchase and assumption agreement by the 1st Defendant with the 4th Defendant Bank amounted to expropriation of the assets of UT bank which the Plaintiff is a shareholder.
4. An order of injunction restraining the 2nd and 3rd Defendants from holding themselves out as Receivers on the basis of the ultra vires act of the 1st Defendant.
5. An order cancelling the purchase and assumption agreement between the 1st Defendant and 4th Defendant Bank arising out of the 1st Defendant’s abuse of power.
6. Any other orders as the court may deem fit.
On being served with the writ, 1st Defendant entered conditional appearance and followed it up with an application under Order 9 rule 8 of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 2004, (CI 47), praying for an order to set aside the writ of summons and statement of claim for want of jurisdiction. By its ruling delivered on 30th November 2017, the trial court upheld the application and set aside Plaintiff’s writ of summons and statement of claim on grounds