THE REPUBLIC v. BANK OF GHANA, EX PARTE: EXPRESSWAY MICROFINANCE LTD.

SACKEY TORKORNOO CJ:-

Background to the dispute

The Applicant/Appellant/Respondent (hereafter referred to as Applicant) is a microfinance company.

According to depositions in the supporting affidavit by the majority shareholder and a director of the Applicant, the company was set up in 2013, and given a license by the Bank of Ghana to operate as a non-bank financial institution in June 2014, even before the company received a certificate to commence business in 2015. The business of the company included taking of deposits, granting of loans and investments. Three other affidavits were filed by a minority shareholder and chairman of the company, the accountant of the company, and a consultant to the company in support of the suit.

They averred that on May 31, 2019, the Bank of Ghana, the Respondent/Respondent/Appellant (hereafter referred to as Respondent) published the names of financial institutions whose licenses it had revoked on grounds of insolvency. In that publication, the Respondent also announced the appointment of one Mr. Eric Nipah as a receiver to take over the assets and liabilities of the ‘insolvent’ financial institutions.

According to the depositions supporting the action, certain individuals who identified themselves as staff of Price Waterhouse Coopers closed down the offices of the Applicant on 31st May, 2019, without any justification except for the reason that they had been sent by the Respondent. They also took away the company’s assets and keys to the vault of the Applicant.

The supporting depositions alleged that the revocation of the Applicant’s license was done any without prior notice to it by the Respondent. That the Applicant had not breached any regulatory guidelines. It was the case of the Applicant that it was solvent and that the publication that it is insolvent was defamatory. It also urged that the actions of the Respondent has caused it to lose its goodwill, its clients, and the Applicant had been prevented from accessing its business records.

They averred that following the closure of the Applicant’s business, the Applicant petitioned the Respondent on 1st June, 2019 for clarification, review and rescission of the revocation of the Applicant’s license but the Respondent did not respond. Aggrieved by the actions of the Respondent, the Applicant brought an application to the High Court on 15th October, 2019, invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court under Order 55 of C.I. 47, Section 16 of Act 459 and