 |
| Dr Kwabena Duffuor |
In a suit filed against the Bank of Ghana, the former governor of same said the license granted the new bank was not in accordance with Act 930 and should be declared null and void.
uniBank was one of four indigenous banks collapsed and joined to become the Consolidated Bank Limited.
He claims the revocation of the license of Unibank constitutes unlawful expropriation of the property of shareholders in breach of articles 18 and 20 of the constitution.
In a writ, Dr Duffuor noted that “as at the end of July 2017.uniBank was a leading indigenous bank with the highest paid up capital of GHS 370.13 million and a Capital Adequacy Ratio (CAR) of 10.7% as acknowledged by the defendant. uniBank also had a total paid-up capital, including income surplus of GHS 422.10 million.
“As at end of July 2017, uniBank had 400,000 accounts and 54 branches spread throughout the country and employed about 2000 people, inclusive of outsourced staff.”
The writ also added that “ the plaintiffs say that the defendant acted unreasonably and in bad faith in the conduct of repeated auditing and downgrading of the financial position of uniBank, and thereby went outside the powers it had under the Banks and Specialized Deposit Taking Institutions Act,2016 (Act 930).
Source: ghanaweb.com
Read the full statement below.
REGISTRAR
HGH COURT *ACCRA
REPUBLIC
OF GHANA
WRIT OF
SUMMONS
CRA_(Order
2 rule 3(1)
WRIT
ISSUED FROM 36.8 .2018. suit No.GJ. 298 2016
IN THE
HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
(GENERAL
JURISDICTION)
AND
BETWEEN
1. Dr.
Kwabena Duffuor 300 0008756 1. Dr. Kwabena Duffuor
14 Adomi Link
Plaintin: Airport
Residential, Accra 2. Integrated Properties Limited
Gbawe
Top Base, Accra 300 8 7SH
Defendant:
Bank of Ghana
1
Thorpe Road To High Street, Acera 3000v1219 AN ACTION having been commenced
against you by the issue of this Writ by the above-named plaintiff
Dr.
Kwabena Duffour, Integrated Properties Limited YOU ARE HEREBY COMMANDED that
within EIGHT DAYS after service of this Writ on you inclusive of the day of
service you do cause an appearance to be entered for you.
BANK OF
GHANA CAND TAKE NOTICE that in default of your so doing, judgment may be given
in your absence without further notice to you. BANK OF GHANA
South of
Augnit 2.18
Dated
this
Pay of
169
SELL.ED).
SEXLED........20.0
-...2008
SOPHIA
A.B. AKUFFO (MS)
...
Chief Justice of Ghana..
HIGH
COURT ACCRA
NB:
This writ is to be served within twelve calendar mont/s from the date of issue
unless, it is renewed within six calender
mont/s
from the date of that renewal
The defendant may appear
hereto by filing a notice of appearance either personally or by lawyer at
A defendant appearing
personally may, if Form 5 ar the Registry of the Court of Issue of the writ at
he desires, give notice of appearance by post.
Syate nante. Place of
residence or business address of plaintif i known (not P.O. Box number). Syale
mane place of residence or business address of defendant (nor P.O. Box member).
FORM I
-93
Filed
20-8-18
LAP
ting or
A Ral
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF JUDICATURE ACCKA
HIGH-COURT
IN THE
HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
(GENERAL
JURISDICTION)
ACCRA -
A.D. 2018
sted
SUIT NO:
BETWEEN
1st
PLAINTIFF
1. DR
KWABENA DUFFUOR 14 ADOMI LINK, AIRPORT RESIDENTIAL AREA, ACCRA.
2nd
PLAINTIFF
FIL
ETTE
2.
INTEGRATED PROPERTIES LIMITED GBAWE TOP BASE ACCRA
AND
DEFENDANT
BANK OF
GHANA 1 THORPE ROAD HIGH STREET
ACCRA
STATEMENT OF CLAIM
The
Plaintiff's Claim is for:
sve, that the producted
Bank Ghana Limuidusly impair Jy vested in cont from arbitrarily na stitutions
and share
An
order of injunction restraining the Defendant from expropriating uniBank by its
purported vesting of
good
assets and liabilities of uniBank in Consolidated Bank Ghana Limited and the
revocation of the license of uniBank: A declaration that the license
purportedly granted to the Consolidated Bank Ghana Limited was not granted in
accordance with Act 930 and is null and void: A declaration, consequent to it)
above, that the good assets and liabilities of uniBank, including deposits of
depositors, cannot be lawfully vested in Consolidated Bank Ghana Limited. An
order of injunction restraining the Defendant from arbitrarily and capriciously
impairine almost the entire loan book, including debts of Government and
quasi-Government institutions and shareholders' advances in the accounts of
uniBank, to justify its purported revocation of the license of uniBank; A
declaration that the purported revocation of the license of uniBank is null and
void, being in breach Articles 23 and 296 of the 1992 Constitution of the
Republic of Ghana: A declaration that the purported revocation of the licence
of uniBank constitutes unlawful expropriation ! the property of the Plaintiffs
and other shareholders of uniBank in breach of Articles 18 and 20 of the 1972
Constitution of the Republic of Ghana. An order of mandatory injunction
requiring the Defendant to restore uniBank to private management
shareholding. viii. Any
other relief(s) which this Honourable Court deems fit or considers just
Pongra
This Writ was issued by
PROF.
RAYMOND A. ATUGUBA
Solicitors
Licence No. GAR 15101/18 whose address for service is
TIN:
P0000092215
ATUGUBA & ASSOCIATES,
EAST LEGON Agent for PLAINTIFF
Lawyer
for the plaintiff
who
resides at
ACCRA
ATUGUBA
& ASSOCIATES HSE No:OTINSHIE - ADJIRINGANOR NEAR REX PLAZA, ACCRA - GHANA
P. O. BOX LG-203, LEGON - ACCRA
Indorsement
to be made within 3 days after service
This
Writ was served by me at
On the
defendant
on the
day of
endorsed
the
day of
Signed...
Address...
NOTE:
If the plaintiff's claim is for liquidated demand only, further proceedings
will be stayed if
within the time limited
for appearance the defendant pays the amount claimed to the plaintiff, his
lawyer or his agent or into Court as provided for in Order 2 rule 3 (2).
STATEMENT OF CLAIM
1. The
Plaintiffs are shareholders of uniBank (Ghana) Limited (uniBank), a bank duly
licensed
by the Defendant in February 2000 and which commenced operations in January
2001.
2. The
1st Plaintiff has been Governor of the Defendant and also Minister of Finance of
the
Republic of Ghana and has academic qualifications in Economics, and a Doctorate
degree from Syracuse University in the United States of America.
3. The
Defendant is the Central Bank of the Republic of Ghana established under article
183 of
the 1992 Constitution.
4. The
Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of shareholders of uniBank as at 31 July
2018.
5. As
at the end of July 2017, uniBank was a leading indigenous bank with the highest
paid up
capital of GHS 370.13 million and a Capital Adequacy Ratio (CAR) of 10.7% as
acknowledged by the Defendant. uniBank also had a total paid up capital,
including income surplus, of GHS 422.10 million.
6. As
at the end of July 2017, uniBank had 400,000 accounts and 54 branches spread
throughout
the country and employed about 2000 people, inclusive of outsourced staff.
N
7. The Defendant recognized in its review of the
state of banks in Ghana about
September
2017 that uniBank was one of three banks which would be able to meet new
minimum capital requirements set by the Defendant for banks in Ghana of paidup
capital of GHS 400 million by December 2018 once their respective income
surplus accounts were capitalized.
8.
Based on an August 2017 Examination Plan of the Banking Supervision Department
of the
Defendant for uniBank, officials of the said Department visited the premises of
uniBank for an audit of the books of uniBank.
9.
After the audit, the officials claimed to the management of uniBank that the
bank's
CAR had
gone down from 10.7% to 8.24%.
10.
Whilst uniBank was awaiting the complete report of the examination which had led
to the position taken by the Defendant to reduce its CAR,
another team of inspectors from the Defendant again visited uniBank and
purported to audit and further downgrade the very same credit facilities on
which provisions had been made as reflected in the earlier reduction of the CAR
of uniBank to 8.24%.
11.The
Defendant purported to reduce the CAR again from 8.24% to 4.8% as at
September
2017
12.From
August 2017 through to the end of the year, further visits were made by
officials of the Defendant to uniBank outside the 2017
Examination Plan of the Banking Supervision Department of the Defendant,
purporting again to audit the same accounts of uniBank.
13.After
each such visit, management of uniBank was informed of further downgrading
of the
financial position of uniBank such that by November 2017, the CAR of uniBank
was claimed to have gone negative.
3
14. The purported downgrading of the financial
position of uniBank by the Defendant
was, in
significant part, due to the Defendant unreasonably and unjustifiably impairing
even Government and quasi-Government exposures to uniBank, including validated
payment certificates issued to contractors by Government.
15. The
purported audits and downgrading of credit facilities on the books of uniBank
by the
Defendant were carried out unlawfully and in bad faith and with a view to
putting uniBank out of business.
16.By
downgrading exposures of the Government of Ghana, including validated interim
payment
certificates issued to contractors by Government, the Defendant was purporting
to declare the Government of Ghana not creditworthy.
17. By
letter dated 18th January 2018, addressed to the Head of the Banking
Supervision
Department of the Defendant, uniBank expressed its dissatisfaction with the
purported downgrades of its accounts. The response from the Defendant dated
30th January 2018 claimed that it had noticed further deterioration in the
bank's capital base, without specifying the period of such alleged
deterioration. The said claim was inconsistent with the acknowledgement by the
Defendant that as of July 2017, uniBank had a CAR of 10.7%.
18.The
Plaintiffs say that Defendant acted unreasonably and in bad faith in the conduct
of
repeated auditing and downgrading of the financial position of uniBank, and
thereby went outside the powers it had under the Banks and Specialised
DepositTaking Institutions Act, 2016 (Act 930).
19.On
or about 20th March 2018, the Defendant, in a press release, announced that
effective
that very day, it had appointed an Official Administrator for uniBank. The
Official Administrator was named as KPMG.
20. In the said press release, the Defendant
stated that it was acting under Sections 107
and 108 of Act 930, and specifically recited the authority of
the Official Administrator under section 108 "to exercise a variety of
powers to rehabilitate and return the bank to regulatory compliance within a
period of six months, at the end of which the bank will be returned to private
ownership and management."
21. It
was further stated in the said press release that "[d]uring the period of
official
administration of uniBank, the bank will remain open for
business under the management and control of KPMG overseen by the Bank of
Ghana, and is not being closed and liquidated."
22. The
Defendant stated in the said press release that uniBank had been identified
after
an
asset quality review in 2016 as "significantly undercapitalized with a CAR
of 4.75%" but deliberately failed to disclose to the public that
shareholders of uniBank had injected additional capital which then took the CAR
to 10.7% as at July 2017.
23.By
letter dated 22nd June 2018 to the Minister of Finance, the Official
Administrator
notified the Minister of Finance of various "overdue
amounts from Government and Government-related entities" totaling GHS
868,973,599.10 as at May 31st 2018 and requested settlement of these amounts.
24.By a
letter to the Official Administrator dated 12th July 2018 signed for the
Minister
by a
Deputy Minister of Finance, receipt of the letter dated 22nd June 2018 from the
Official Administrator was acknowledged and it was stated that the Ministry was
"currently validating the numbers together with Bank of Ghana and as soon
as practicable would revert with full details as requested."
5
The Plaintiffs say
that the said obligations of Government are undoubted obligations of
Government, settlement of which would have a positive effect on the capital and
the balance sheet of uniBank.
26. The
Plaintiffs further state that neither the Defendant nor the Official
Administrator
could
lawfully disregard these obligations of the Government in its assessment of the
financial state of uniBank.
27.
Though in its March 2018 Press Release appointing the Official Administrator,
the
Defendant
makes reference to the Ministry of Finance having "recently agreed to
absorb" an amount of GHS 428,817,961, this is not reflected in the figure
for liquidity support contained in the Statement of the Governor of the
Defendant to the Press on 20th March 2018, nor in the accounts of uniBank
prepared by the Official Administrator.
28. A
letter dated 14th February 2018 from the Acting Head of the Banking Supervision
Department of the Defendant to the Managing Director of uniBank
had stated that since "the Ministry of Finance (MOF) on Wednesday, 7th
February, 2018 agreed to use their outstanding indebtedness to you in respect
of IPCs [Interim Payment Certificates) amounting to GHC 428,817,961.06 to
offset part of the unsecured portion of your obligation to the Bank of Ghana",
there had been an adjustment of uniBank's November 2017 prudential returns
"with the above payments ...", yet this amount is not reflected in
the statement of the Governor of the Defendant referred to in paragraph 27
above.
29. In
a letter dated March 2, 2018 uniBank also notified the Acting Head of the
Banking
Supervision Department of the Defendant that there were
additional receivables attributable to the Government backed by supporting
documents, amounting to GHS 955,586,421.39. No response had been provided to
this letter by the time of the press conference of the Defendant on 20th March
2018.
30. The Plaintiffs say that the claim in the
statement to the press of the Governor of the
Defendant that had a "CAR of negative 24.02% and capital
deficit of GHC1.18 billion as of December 2017," was also erroneously
based on a disregard of the admitted debt of GHC 428,817,961.06 by the Ministry
of Finance and the disregard of the other debts attributable to government as
indicated in the letter dated March 2, 2018
31.The
Plaintiffs further say that the Governor of the Defendant also falsely claimed
in
the
statement to the press above referred to that uniBank had "continued to
increase its asset base (granting new loans to clients)" between September
2017 and December 2017.
32.
When the issue of an increase in loans between September 2017 and December 2017
had
been raised by the Banking Supervision Department with the Managing Director of
uniBank in a letter dated 28th February 2018, uniBank provided a response by a
letter dated 2nd March 2018, indicating clearly that these were not new loans
and that the failure to capture them in earlier returns was due to system
challenges arising from software migration.
33. The
Plaintiffs state that the impairment by the Defendant of the amount of GHC
760,675,826.23
on the basis of the claim that this was from a granting of new loans between
September 2017 and December 2017, and the resulting figures provided in the
statement to the press by the Governor of the Defendant were unreasonable acts
of the Defendant, contrary to Articles 23 and 296 of the Constitution of the
Republic of Ghana, and were designed to put uniBank out of business and to wipe
out the investments of shareholders of uniBank
34.At a
meeting at the instance of 1st Plaintiff on 30th July 2018 at the premises of
the
Defendant,
the 1st Plaintiff expressed concern about the unreasonable and unlawful
downgrading of assets of uniBank by the Official Administrator, especially as
regards obligations of Government and
Quasi-Government institutions. The 1st Plaintiff reiterated the readiness of
shareholders of uniBank to inject further capital into uniBank as had
previously been communicated in writing by the 1st Plaintiff to the Official
Administrator.
35. By
letter dated 31st July 2018 to the Official Administrator and copied to the
First
Deputy
Governor of the Defendant who had chaired the meeting referred to in paragraph
34 above on 30th July 2018, the 1st Plaintiff, on behalf of the Shareholders of
uniBank, again drew attention to the lack of justification for the apparent
impairment by the Official Administrator of, among others, "government and
quasigovernment receivables of close to one billion Ghana Cedis (GHS1.0
billion) for which Interim Payment Certificates (IPCs) have been issued."
36. In
the said letter, the 1st Plaintiff also referred to communication by the
shareholders
to the
Official Administrator detailing shareholder assets whereby the shareholders
proposed to inject capital into uniBank.
37. The
Plaintiffs state that the commitment expressed by the 1st Plaintiff on behalf of
the
shareholders of uniBank to inject further capital into uniBank would make it
wholly unnecessary for taxpayer resources to be used to capitalize uniBank.
38. The
Plaintiffs say that the expressed commitment by the shareholders of uniBank to
inject
further capital has been unreasonably disregarded by the Defendant in its
consideration of the condition of uniBank.
39. The
Plaintiffs aver that the shareholders have not been given the opportunity to
provide
any additional capital needed to shore up the alleged deficiency, and no lawful
basis exists for the denial to the shareholders of this opportunity as
anticipated in the March 2018 press release issued by the Defendant, at the
time it appointed the Official Administrator.
10. To the knowledge of the Defendant, the
shareholders of uniBank have on previous
occasions
provided additional capital to ensure compliance by uniBank of capital
requirements of the Defendant.
41. To
date, the shareholders of uniBank have not been furnished with a copy of the
report
of the Official Administrator.
42. The
Defendant, in response to a request by the shareholders on the 13rd of August
2018
for the report, claimed that it was “unable... to make available...a copy of
the Official Administrator's Report on the bank”. No reason was assigned for
the refusal to provide the report to the Shareholders.
43.Despite
the Defendant's adamant refusal to furnish the shareholders with the report
of the
Official Administrator, on or about 18th August 2018, a report purporting to be
the Official Administrator's Report on the Financial Condition and Future
Prospects of uniBank Ghana is being disseminated in the media.
44.The
Plaintiffs state that it is unacceptable for the Defendant to deny Shareholders
access
to the report, even as material in the report is being widely disseminated to
discredit uniBank and instigate public contempt and opprobrium against uniBank,
especially when no opportunity has been provided to the Shareholders of uniBank
to respond to any purported findings of the Official Administrator.
45. In
the purported report it is stated that the said report should not be made
available
or
communicated to any party without the prior written consent of the Official
Administrator.
There is a further
statement in the report by the Administrator that "we have not sought to
verify information contained herein...accordingly we are unable to determine
the extent to which information and explanations provided to us are complete
and accurate and the report should be read in that context."
47. The
Plaintiffs say that the recent appointment of the Official Administrator as the
Receiver in respect of some assets of uniBank and four other
banks shows the Official Administrator seeking to benefit from the report that
it provided to the Defendant through a further paid engagement, a clear
conflict of interest situation.
48. The
Plaintiffs aver that contrary to statements in the press release issued by the
Defendant
on the appointment of the Official Administrator, that uniBank "will
remain open for business under the management and control of KPMG overseen by
the Bank of Ghana, and is not being closed and liquidated" and the assurance
to customers of uniBank that “all deposits they have with uniBank are, and will
remain, safe and that they can continue to do business at any of its branches.
NO DEPOSITOR OF THE BANK WILL LOSE ANY MONEY”, many customers have been unable
to access their funds at uniBank since the appointment of the Official
Administrator.
49. The
Defendant, on the 1st of August 2018, issued another statement to the press
announcing:
“Government establishes new indigenous bank; Bank of Ghana revokes licenses of
five banks and appoints receiver in respect of their assets and
liabilities". uniBank was one of the five banks whose license was
purported to have been revoked by the Defendant.
50.In
paragraph 8 of the Defendant's 1st August 2018 press release, the Defendant
stated
that it is consolidating the good assets and liabilities of uniBank Ghana
Limited..." and four other named banks and further states that it has also
appointed Mr. Nii Doodoo (sic) Amanor of KPMG as receiver in respect of the bad
loan assets of the five banks, under section 123 of the Banks and Specialized
-Deposit-Taking Institutions 2016 (Act 930) (sic)."
10
61 The Plaintiffs say that contrary to the
Defendant's own indication in its March 2018
press release appointing the Official Administrator that uniBank
would be returned to private ownership and management at the end of the work of
the Official Administrator, the Defendant rather sought to transfer the
"good assets and liabilities” of uniBank into a government owned
Consolidated Bank Ghana Limited.
52. The
Plaintiffs state that the actions of the Defendant, announced on 13 August 2018,
especially
the purported transfer of "the good assets and liabilities of uniBank
Ghana Limited ..." cannot be justified in terms of Section 123 of Act 930.
53. The
Plaintiffs say that section 127 of Act 930 makes it clear that upon the
appointment of a receiver in the circumstances provided for in
Section 123 of Act 930, “the receiver shall be the sole legal representative of
the bank” whose license has been revoked "and shall succeed the rights and
powers of the shareholders, the directors and key management personnel of the
bank”.
54. The
Plaintiffs state that the claim of the Defendant to be "consolidating the
good
assets and liabilities" of uniBank and others to become
Consolidated Bank Ghana Limited with immediate effect" is an expropriation
of the property of the plaintiff and other shareholders of uniBank in
contravention of Articles 18 and 20 of the 1992 Constitution of the Republic of
Ghana.
55. The
Plaintiffs state further that the clear requirements of Sections 7 to 9 of Act
930
in
respect of the licensing of banks by the Defendant have not been complied with
in respect of the so-called Consolidated Bank Ghana Limited and the purported
vesting of “good assets and liabilities" of uniBank in such an entity
which has not fulfilled the requirements to be licensed as a bank is unlawful
and an arbitrary and capricious act of the Defendant.
11
indeed, in a press
release also dated the same 1st August 2018 the Defendant claims to have
"granted a universal banking license to Consolidated Bank Ghana Limited
established by the Government", even though the requirements under Act 930
for the grant of such a license had not been met by Consolidated Bank Ghana
Limited and the license purportedly granted to the Consolidated Bank Ghana was,
therefore, not issued in accordance with Act 930.
57. In
a press release of the same 1st August 2018 by the Ministry of Finance, it is
stated
that "the government has incorporated a new bank called
Consolidated Bank of Ghana Limited ....and capitalized it with GHC 450
million," clearly indicating that Defendant's action involves vesting
private property in the government, amounting to nationalization.
58. The
Plaintiffs say that the claims of the Minister of Finance to capitalize the
Consolidated Bank of Ghana with GHS 450 million is without
lawful authority as the approved national budget for 2018 has no provision for
such expenditures by the Government
59. The
Plaintiffs further state that the issue of a license by the Defendant to
Consolidated Bank Ghana Limited is also on contravention of
section 9(d) of Act 930 in view of the admission in the August 1st Press
Release of the Minister for Finance that borrowed funds are part of the
original sources of capital of the said bank.
0.The
Plaintiffs say that the purported issuance of a Bond in the amount of GHS 5.76
Billion,
for the provision of financial support to Consolidated Bank Ghana Limited is
also without parliamentary approval, and therefore, without lawful authority.
Al. In any case, the
obtained
by
ase, the said funding announced by the Minister of Finance has
not been ned by Consolidated Bank Ghana Limited so as to justify the Defendant
conting a licence to Consolidated Bank Ghana Limited.
the Plaintiffs say that the requirements set out in Act 930 for
licensing banks are to he enforced by the Defendant as the regulator of the
sector; and disregarding these requirements in respect of Consolidated Bank
Ghana Limited, while claiming to enforce regulatory requirements that Defendant
claims have not been satisfied by uniBank, is an aspect of the egregious double
standards of Defendant as it pursues its unconstitutional and unlawful conduct
against uniBank and its shareholders.
63.The
Plaintiffs state that the Defendant, by the actions it took to downgrade the
assets
of
uniBank, as outlined herein, set itself on a preconceived course of
expropriating the property of the shareholders of uniBank.
64. The
Plaintiffs say that the actions of the Defendant, as set out above, consistently
contravened Article 23 of the Constitution which imposes a duty
on administrative bodies and officials to act fairly and reasonably and comply
with the requirements imposed on them by law.
65.
Furthermore, the actions of the Defendant in respect of the supervision and
regulation
of uniBank were undertaken arbitrarily, capriciously, unfairly and without due
process, contrary to Article 296 of the 1992 Constitution.
66. The
Plaintiffs state that in all the steps taken against uniBank since August 2017
in
respect
of the assessment of the bank's financial position, the Defendant has acted
arbitrarily, capriciously and unfairly and without due process, having targeted
uniBank as a bank that Defendant had predetermined to fail.
67. The Plaintiffs say that the attempt of the
Defendant, in collusion with the Minister
of Finance, to have taxpayer resources made available to
Consolidated Bank of Ghana to take up "good assets and liabilities" of
uniBank is unlawful and unreasonable, particularly in the light of the
expressed commitment of shareholders of uniBank to inject capital from their
own private resources into uniBank, so as to ensure the bank's operations in
accordance with the laws of Ghana.
68.
Unless the Defendant is restrained from implementing the measures it announced
on
1st August 2018, Plaintiff and other shareholders of uniBank
stand to lose their property through what is clearly a nationalization of
private property of the shareholders of uniBank contrary to the provisions of
the 1992 Constitution of the Republic of Ghana.
WHEREFORE
the Plaintiffs pray this Honorable court for the following reliefs:
i. An
order of injunction restraining the Defendant from expropriating uniBank
by its
purported vesting of "good assets and liabilities" of uniBank in
Consolidated Bank Ghana Limited and the revocation of the license of uniBank;
ii.
A
declaration that the license purportedly granted to the Consolidated Bank Ghana
Limited was not granted in accordance with Act 930 and is null and void;
iži.
A declaration, consequent to ii) above, that the "good
assets and liabilities" of uniBank, including deposits of depositors,
cannot be lawfully vested in Consolidated Bank Ghana Limited.
iv.
An order of injunction restraining the Defendant from
arbitrarily and capriciously impairing almost the entire loan book, including
debts of Government and quasi-Government institutions and shareholders' advances
14
in the accounts of uniBank, to justify its
purported revocation of the license of uniBank;
V.
A
declaration that the purported revocation of the license of uniBank is null and
void, being in breach of Articles 23 and 296 of the 1992 Constitution of the
Republic of Ghana;
vi.
A
declaration that the purported revocation of the licence of uniBank constitutes
unlawful expropriation of the property of the plaintiffs and other shareholders
of uniBank in breach of Articles 18 and 20 of the 1992 Constitution of the
Republic of Ghana.
vii.
An
order of mandatory injunction requiring the Defendant to restore uniBank to
private management and shareholding.
viii.
Any
other relief(s) which this Honourable Court deems fit or considers just.
DATED
AT THE LAW FIRM OF ATUGUBA & ASSOCIATES, ACCRA, THIS 20TH DAY OF AUGUST,
2018
A্যান্সি
PROF.
RAYMOND ATUGUBA
SOLICITOR
FOR THE PLAINTIFFS SOLICITOR'S LICENCE NO. GAR 15101/18
TIN:
P0000092215
THE
REGISTRAR HIGH COURT
ATUGUBA & ASSOCIATES HSE No. 3 OTINSHIE - ADJIRINGANOR NEAR
REX PLAZA, ACCRA - GHANA P. O. BOX LG 203, LEGON - ACCRA
ACCRA.
15
No comments:
Post a Comment