I lost GH¢54m for renegotiating judgement — Woyome

19 June 2014 page 20

Businessman Alfred Agbesi Woyome yesterday stated that he lost GH¢54 million as a result of renegotiating a default judgement awarded him by the Commercial Court against the state.

According to him, the court originally awarded him GH¢105 million, being four per cent of a 1.1 billion Euro facility he raised from Banc Austria, but the money was reduced to GH¢51.2 million because the state said it was not in the position to pay the four per cent.

The accused person said following the renegotiation of the amount, he and the Attorney-General and Minister of Justice, Mrs Betty Mould-Iddrisu, signed an agreement to that effect.

He said the terms of settlement was filed at the registry of the Commercial Court and just when he and his lawyer were about to move in for its execution, the Attorney-General filed a process at the same court with the explanation that “everything to that stage was arrived at by mistake.”

Terming the Attorney-General’s position then as “strange and in bad faith,” Woyome said he and his lawyers decided to contest the state’s claim.

“Ruling delivered in my favour”

He said the court ruled  in his favour and it was later agreed that a timetable be drawn for the money to be paid in tranches.

According to him, the state was already out of time in honouring the payment of GH¢17 million, the amount for the first tranche.

The court, the accused person explained, also directed him to put in a guarantee which stated that he would refund the money if he lost the state’s contest to his default judgement.

Asked by his counsel, Mr Sarfo Buabeng, why he received the rest of the money despite the court’s order, Woyome explained that interest was accruing as the case between him and the state progressed, and for that reason, a pre-trial conference was held at the Commercial Court to resolve that.

Woyome told the court that the government, represented by the Attorney-General, voluntarily asked him and his lawyer to submit a proposal on how the remaining   amount would be paid. He said the government eventually paid the full amount into his account at the Agricultural Development Bank (ADB). 

He also informed the court that the state did not put in any defence to his suit at the Commercial Court, adding that it eventually led to the award of a default judgment in his favour.

Money not enough

Woyome indicated that the GH¢51.2 million was not enough to cater for loans he raised from local banks as well as payments he made to consultants in the United States of America (USA) but he, nonetheless, accepted it.

Testifying in his GH¢51.2 million criminal case, the accused person said he lost a property in Washington DC as a result of the reduction of the amount due him and he struggled to pay off local banks he had contracted loans from while arranging syndication of loans for the construction of stadia, hospitals and other facilities for the CAN 2008 tournament.

Obstacles

The accused person told the court, presided over by Mr Justice John Ajet-Nasam, that there were attempts to pay him but the Ministry of Finance and Economic Planning (MOFEP) tried to block the payment but the Attorney-General then wrote to the MOFEP to defend the payment.

He also narrated how Mrs Mould-Iddrisu asked him to write a justification letter within 48 hours to explain why he was entitled to the claim, with the explanation that a committee had been set up at the seat of the presidency to investigate his claim.

He said he sought audience with late President J.E.A. Mills but did not give details and further disclosed that he met the then Deputy Chief of Staff, Mr Alex Segbefia, over the issue.

According to him, Mr Segbefia requested copies of documents, which he provided and that resulted in Mr Segbefia asking he and his lawyer to go back and negotiate the default judgement with the Attorney-General.

He told the court that he eventually negotiated with the government, resulting in the release of the entire GH¢51.2 million to him.

See more on here

Court to rule on mandatory takeover of HFC June 23

June 17 page 20

The Commercial Court in Accra will, on June 23, 2014, determine whether or not to set aside a suit challenging the mandatory takeover of HFC Bank’s shares by the Republic Bank.

An application filed by Mr Fui Tsikata, lawyer for the Republic Bank, is praying the court to set aside the writ of summons brought against Republic Bank and the Securities and Exhcnages Commission (SEC).
It is also praying the court to dismiss the entire action on the grounds that it is without merit and shows no cause of action.
But lawyers for HFC Bank, led by Nania Owusu-Ankomah, are opposed to the application and praying the court to entertain the writ on the grounds that it has merit.
The court, presided over by Mr Justice George K. Koomson, at its sitting in Accra yesterday, directed parties to file written submissions to enable the court to rule on the matter on June 23, 2014.

Timeline for parties
The Republic Bank and the SEC have been given 24 hours to file their submissions, while HFC Bank has 24 hours to respond upon receipt of the filed submissions.

Background
The Republic Bank filed the action on the grounds that the Securities Industry Law 1993 (PNDCL 333) provides explicitly for the matters complained of by HFC to be submitted to the SEC before redress can be sought in court.
According to the Republic Bank, it was improper for the HFC to resort to the court when it had, indeed, failed to report alleged breach of Securities Industry Law to the SEC as was required by law.
The applicant is further arguing that the HFC Bank took the legal action without authorisation from the board of directors of HFC Bank.

Abuse of process
According to the bank, HFC’s action was vexatious and an abuse of the court process because the board of directors of HFC Bank approved the transaction eight months ago.
It said the transaction, which formed the core issue before the court,  had been resolved by the board of directors of HFC Bank and for that reason HFC Bank had no leg to stand on.

Background
The HFC Bank, on May 23, 2014, instituted legal action against the Republic Bank and the SEC.
According to the bank, there was a transaction involving the purchase of HFC shares held by the Union Bank of Nigeria from the Republic Bank, which according to HFC, was in breach of SEC Law.
According to the HFC Bank, the Union Bank of Nigeria sold its shares to the Republic Bank in breach of the SEC Law.
But the Republic Bank is arguing that that transaction had received approval from the board of directors of HFC Bank.

Click HERE for more stories on the HFC takeover issue

Interesting twist over money paid by UT Bank

Hearing of the contest over the ownership of $391,250 paid into the coffers of the Judicial Service by UT Bank took three interesting dimensions at the Financial Division of the High Court in Accra yesterday.

The first drama occurred when the lawyer for a complainant against the Economic Organised Crime Office (EOCO) accused the unit of instituting terrorism and money laundering investigations on Auxesia Energy Limited when, in effect, his client did not lodge any complaint with the office.
Mr James Abiaduka, counsel for Soleushing Nigeria, one of the claimants to the money and whose complaint led to the court case, also accused EOCO of failing to conduct thorough investigations into complaints lodged by his client.
He said EOCO did “absolutely nothing” about the circumstances leading to the sale, purchase, charter and delivery of low pour fuel oil (LPFO).
An investigator at EOCO, Mr Patrick Kofi Awoonor, who was being cross-examined by the lawyer, denied the claims.

Soleushing Nigeria stole vessel
The third twist to the issue ensued when another lawyer representing Soleushing UK stated that Soleushing Nigeria had stolen the vessel which was chartered to cart LPFO to Ghana.
Cross-examining Mr Awoonor, Mr Dubik Yakubu Mahama sought to portray to the court through the investigator that Soleushing UK did, indeed, lodge a complaint with the Cape Coast police against Soleushing Nigeria over a missing vessel.
The vessel was used in carting LPFO to Ghana in 2013 but Soleushing UK lodged a complaint with the Cape Coast police to the effect that Soleushing Nigeria had stolen the vessel.
Mr Awoonor, in reply, told the court that the matter formed part of issues under investigation.
Asked if Prince Adeleke Oyinyola, who lodged a complaint against Auxesia Energy, was the owner of the vessel, the investigator said, “No, my Lord. As of now there is no document to prove the vessel belongs to Prince Adeleke.”
Prince Oyinlola’s company is demanding the $391,250 from Auxesia Energy on the grounds that the vessel which was used to cart the LPFO belonged to him.

EOCO to produce statements
Mr Awoonor had on the last adjourned date told the court that the $391,250 cheque had been altered to include the name ‘Kayode’ but stated yesterday that the issues pertaining to the cheque were not part of investigations.
The investigator also conceded that a person by name Ullirch gave a statement to EOCO to the effect that Soleushing UK had stolen his vessel.
He, however, told the court that one Errol Anthony Leushing did not report any stolen vessel to EOCO.
Mr Awoonor said he was not aware of any statements from Leushing with respect to the vessel either.
The court, presided over by Mr Justice John Ajet-Nasam, has since granted the requests of Mr Dubik and counsel for Auxesia Energy Limited,
Mr Godfred Yeboah Dame, for the investigator to furnish the court with all statements and attachments connected to the case.
The court agreed with both counsel and, accordingly, directed EOCO to furnish the court with the said statements today (June 17, 2014).

Cheque not part of investigations
Answering questions under cross-examination from Mr Abiaduka, the EOCO investigator disagreed with counsel that Prince Oyinlola was not among persons who had told the EOCO that the vessel had been chartered by Earth Petroleum.
Counsel then suggested to the witness that Prince Oyinlola lodged a complaint with the Ministry of the Interior and not directly with EOCO, but the witness explained that the matter was referred to his team by his superiors.
An affidavit sworn on behalf of EOCO by Mr Awoonor was tendered in evidence. It stated, among others, that Soleushing chartered the vessel on behalf of Auxesia Energy for the transportation of LPFO for a fee of $420,000.
He also stated in the affidavit that Auxesia Energy received the LPFO and thus received value for it.
Mr Awoonor told the court that Soleushing had not been paid for carting the LPFO but Mr Dame reminded the investigator that “EOCO is not a debt collection agency”.

 Click HERE for more on the UT Bank issue