Daniel Ofori challenges High Court’s ‘perceived’ stay of Supreme Court ruling in ECOBANK case
He argued that the Honourable High Court Judge, per her September 2023 ruling, sought to halt the execution of a Supreme Court ruling held in his favor.
The Supreme Court, this week heard a motion filed by Mr. Daniel Ofori against the High Court for its ruling, which he avers extended into halting an earlier Supreme Court ruling in the matter.
He argued that the Honourable High Court Judge, per her September 2023 ruling, sought to halt the execution of a Supreme Court ruling held in his favor.
However, the 5-member panel of the Supreme Court thought otherwise about the said ruling and thus dismissed the motion.
After the Supreme Court’s dismissal of Ecobank’s review application in May this year in a 4-3 decision, the bank went back to the High Court presided over by Justice Abena Amponsah Buansi, seeking, among others, a declaration that the judgment of the Supreme Court obtained by Mr. Ofori was void as fraud and acts of false pretense had obtained the same.
Also, it sought a declaration that, at all material times that the suit was pending, Mr. Ofori was the owner of the said shares, the subject of contention, having exercised acts of ownership over them.
The court found that Ecobank’s claim in the suit had already been dealt with by the Supreme Court and thus would not serve any purpose for it to consider the remaining grounds, thereby awarding a cost of GHC 40,000 against the bank.
The bank subsequently filed for a stay of the execution of the order of the High Court given above.
However, appearing before the Supreme Court, Tsatsu Tsikata, who is counsel for the applicant, told the court that the High Court Judge, in her orders in the said ruling, extended to stay the earlier Supreme Court order.
He thus sought an order of certiorari to duly quash the High Court ruling as going beyond its jurisdiction.
Barima Yaw Oppong, on his part, thought otherwise, indicating that they had never sought to halt the execution of the Supreme Court and that the order was solely in respect of the High Court’s earlier decision.
Therefore, in its ruling, the Supreme Court agreed with the position of the Bank and held that the trial judge never veered into an order of the Supreme Court and thus dismissed the motion.
