High Court orders Oxford No.1 Hotel returned to owners after disputed takeover

Oxford No.1 Hotel is to be restored to Kensington Residential Partners 1 Limited after the Accra High Court found that the Receiver’s takeover of the facility was carried out too early and in breach of court procedure.

Justice John Mark of the Commercial Division of the High Court ruled on Friday, August 21, 2026, that the possession taken on July 23 by Receiver Nii Amanor Dodoo could not stand.

The court held that the action was taken within a period when execution of the earlier ruling had been automatically stayed under the Court of Appeal Rules.

As a result, the court declared the Receiver’s possession of the hotel a nullity.

It ordered him to immediately hand back Oxford No.1 Hotel, together with all assets of the facility, to Kensington Residential Partners 1 Limited.

The Receiver was also directed to account for all documents, monies and assets that came into his possession through the takeover.

That account is to be rendered within three days under the supervision of the court’s Registrar.

The dispute followed a July 21 ruling in favour of Nii Amanor Dodoo and Cola Holdings Limited.

Two days after that ruling, the Receiver entered the hotel and took possession of the property.

Kensington Residential Partners 1 Limited, represented by Bobby Banson, returned to court the next day, arguing that the takeover violated the automatic seven-day stay of execution available to a party seeking to challenge an appealable High Court decision.

The company said the stay period was to run until July 28, 2026.

It argued that the Receiver and Cola Holdings Limited could not lawfully execute the order on July 23 while that period was still running.

The applicant also claimed that the respondents entered the hotel with police officers, marked the walls to indicate possession and caused workers and guests to leave the premises.

Kensington Residential Partners 1 Limited asked the court to set aside the possession and compel the respondents to return all assets and documents taken from the hotel.

The court agreed with the applicant’s position.

Justice Mark held that the statutory stay had not expired at the time the Receiver took possession.

The judge therefore ruled that the takeover offended the rules of court and must be reversed.

The court further ordered the Receiver to stay away from the property until a pending interlocutory application is heard by the substantive judge on October 20, 2026.

The respondents, represented by Tsatsu Tsikata, had argued that the takeover was lawful because it was based on a valid court order.

They maintained that the Receiver acted within his mandate to preserve the company’s assets.

Mr Tsikata also argued that the automatic seven-day stay did not apply because the ruling being enforced was an interlocutory preservation order, not a final judgment.

He further submitted that Kensington Residential Partners 1 Limited was using the application to delay the lawful enforcement of the court’s earlier order.

The court rejected those arguments and set aside the takeover.

No costs were awarded.