Revocation of GN Bank’s licence: Court of Appeal refers matter to Arbitration

On December 19, 2019, Dr. Nduom and others filed a suit at the High Court, seeking among other things that the court makes an order, quashing the August 16, 2019 decision of the BoG which declared GN Bank insolvent and consequently revoked its licence to operate as a specialised deposit-taking institution.

Is allowance instantly strangers applauded

The Court of Appeal has referred an application by the Bank of Ghana (BoG) challenging the suit by Dr. Papa Kwesi Nduom and others against the Bank of Ghana’s revocation of the licence of GN Bank to the Ghana Arbitration Centre. 

On December 19, 2019, Dr. Nduom and others filed a suit at the High Court, seeking among other things that the court makes an order, quashing the August 16, 2019 decision of the BoG which declared GN Bank insolvent and consequently revoked its licence to operate as a specialised deposit-taking institution.

They also sought a declaration that the BoG violated their rights to administrative justice, to property, and to equality or non-discrimination when it revoked the licence of GN Bank without taking into account the indebtedness of the Government of Ghana and its MDAs.

However, respondents to the case raised some objections. They filed a motion on notice to strike out or set aside the originating notice of motion for enforcement of the fundamental human rights of the applicants, and an objection to the jurisdiction of the High Court to entertain the suit. 

High Court judge, Justice GIFTY AGYEI ADDO giving her ruling nonetheless,  held that the applicants correctly invoked the jurisdiction of the court. She said the case rightly concerned a human rights action, while also noting that section 1 of the ADR Act, 2010 (Act 798) exempted certain matters from arbitration. 

“I am of the respectful opinion, that the enforcement of human rights under the 1992 Constitution, falls within the category of matters which cannot be dealt with by arbitration, specifically by reason of Section 1 (c) of Act 798. The jurisdiction to deal with human rights provisions is vested in the High Court under Article 33 of the 1992 Constitution. I, therefore, find and hold that the Applicants/Respondents have properly invoked my jurisdiction under Article 33 (1) of the 1992 Constitution,” she said.

The case however proceeded to the Court of Appeal, where by a unanimous decision, Justices Henry Coffie, Eric Baah, and Novisi Ayine held that in accordance with section 141 of the Banks and Specialised Deposit-Taking Institutions Act, 2016, Act 930, the jurisdiction for such a challenge is arbitration and not the court.

The Court additionally held that Dr. Nduom and others masqueraded their suit as that of a human rights application, and hence referred it for arbitration.