July 27, 2023
SUPREME COURT
CORAM
Try asking the following...
Background
On 8th October 2019, four natural persons and a company called Boin Microfinance Ltd, commenced an application for judicial review pursuant to Order 55 of the High Court Civil Procedure Rules 2004 CI 47. The application sought an order of certiorari to quash a decision of the Bank of Ghana – the 1st Respondent to the application. Three of the natural persons were supposed to be shareholders of the company, which was the 1st Applicant. The three shareholders were the 2nd, 3rd and 4th Applicant. The 5th Applicant was the chairman of the board of directors of the 1st Applicant.
According to the applicants, the Governor of Bank of Ghana issued a decision on 31st May 2019 revoking the operating license of hundreds of ‘insolvent microfinance companies’ and appointing a receiver for regulation of the ‘insolvent’ companies. In the supporting affidavit, the applicants insisted that the 1st Applicant was not insolvent, and that the company had not been given a hearing before the taking of the decision to revoke its license.
They further contended that the shareholders and directors had sent petitions in June 2019 to the Bank of Ghana against the revocation of the license, and taken out a writ to contest the revocation of the license of the 1st Applicant. The high court had directed that the proper proceeding was an arbitration and struck out the writ. According to the applicants, the Bank of Ghana had not shown any interest in the arbitration proceeding
that they commenced. While this was going on, they contended that the receiver was taking assets of the 1st Applicant and dissipating the resources of the company. They therefore discontinued the arbitration proceeding.
They concluded by averring that first, the act of revocation of the license by the Bank of Ghana was capricious, arbitrary, deliberate and contrary to the provisions of sections 123 to 127 of the Banks and Specialized Deposit Taking Institutions Act 2016, Act 930. It was also contrary to the provisions of the 1992 Constitution,
Second, that the decision by the Bank of Ghana to revoke the license of the 1st Applicant was contrary to the rules of natural justice. Third, that the revocation of the license without complying with the provisions of Act 930 amounts to an error of law on the face of the record.
In the accompanying statement of case, the Interested Parties set out a summary of four arguments. These were that:
1. The Bank of Ghana had the duty to act fairly and reasonably an
AI Generated Summary
Following Bank of Ghana’s 31 May 2019 directive revoking numerous microfinance licences, Boin Microfinance Ltd and four individuals pursued judicial review in the High Court under Order 55 of CI 47 to quash the regulator’s decision affecting Boin. They asserted non‑insolvency, lack of prior hearing, and violations of Act 930 and the 1992 Constitution; petitions and a writ had been redirected to arbitration, which they later discontinued while a receiver managed assets. Procedurally, the High Court dismissed a preliminary striking‑out motion on 2 December 2020 without reasons. On appeal, the Court of Appeal addressed the matter as if it were a human‑rights application under Order 67 and Articles 23, 33 and 296, and treated section 141 of Act 930 as non‑ousting of supervisory jurisdiction. The Supreme Court held the Court of Appeal misapprehended the record by substituting analysis from a different case—Ideal Financial Holding Ltd v Bank of Ghana and Eric Nipah—and conflating procedural regimes. Applying Dam v Addo, the Supreme Court set aside the appellate decision, construed the High Court’s order as refusing the preliminary objection, and remitted for hearing of the substantive application.