March 18, 2026
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
Try asking the following...
ADJEI-FRIMPONG JSC:
By a notice of appeal filed on 23rd June 2023, the Appellant seeks the reversal of the decision of the Court of Appeal dated 30th March 2023. The decision of the Court of Appeal set aside the decision of the High Court which ordered GCB Limited, the Respondent to this appeal to pay the sum of USD 7,428,456 with interest to the Appellant. This appeal in effect seeks the reinstatement of the order of the High Court dated 7th February, 2020. The following are the grounds of appeal:
1.The judgment is against the weight of evidence
2.The Court of Appeal erred in law by holding that the High Court, Commercial Division, Accra has no jurisdiction to embark on a proceeding that involved a bank whose license has been revoked under the provisions of Banks and Specialized Deposit-Taking Institution Act, 2016 [Act 930].
Particulars of Error of Law
[i] The proceedings at the High Court, Commercial Division, Accra was not proceedings against UT Bank as a party but against the Cargo in the Vessel “Olympic Faith” and its hirer who defaulted in paying the hire for the vessel
[ii] UT Bank participated in the suit before the High Court without leave of the Court as provided under Order 62 r l4 of C.I 47 for interveners in maritime action md can therefore not be a necessary party.
3.The Court of Appeal erred in law when it followed the ruling of the Supreme Court dated 17th July, 2028 on application for Judicial Review by the Joint Receivers of UT Bank on the basis of Article l 29(3) of the Constitution.
Particulars of Error of Law
[i] The Supreme Court in its ruling did not state the ratio decidendi for its conclusion that the rules of natural justice and the provision of Section 128(c) of Act 930 are applicable to the execution process deployed under Order 43 r 9(2) of CI 47 by the Plaintiff/ Applicant/Respondent at the High Court, Accra to hold the Respondent/Appellant liable for the payment of the US$ 7 million deposited in the name of the Registrar at UT Bank prior to the revocation of its licence having assumed the account per Purchase and Assumption Agreement.
[ii] The execution process under Order 43 r 9(2) of CI 47 does not require service of notice on the joint Receivers in the application as the rule provides for proceeding against a non-party to a suit whom obedience to any judgment or order may be enforced and the judg
AI Generated Summary
The Appellant filed an appeal seeking to reverse the Court of Appeal's decision dated 30th March 2023, which had set aside a High Court order directing GCB Limited to pay USD 7,428,456 with interest to the Appellant. The Supreme Court reviewed the statements of case and determined that the appeal ought to succeed, subject to further orders. However, the Court found insufficient evidence to support the High Court's finding that GCB Limited had actually assumed the liability for the US$ 7 million deposit originally held at UT Bank under a Purchase and Assumption Agreement. Consequently, the Supreme Court appointed Deloitte Ghana to conduct an independent inquiry to trace the funds and determine liability among the Bank of Ghana, GCB Limited, and the Receivers of UT Bank, withholding full judgment and reasons until the receipt of the inquiry report.