Mr Thaddeus Sory, a lawyer for Mr. Daniel Ofori, an Investor who is in legal battle with Ecobank Ghana, has berated the bank, noting that it has no application pending before the Supreme Court to reopen the matter, as suggested by the Bank in a media release.

In a statement issued in Accra by the Counsel for Mr Ofori, in reaction to a media release by the Bank, Mr Sory indicated that the only application filed by Ecobank recently was for review of the Supreme Court’s decision refusing Ecobank’s earlier application to reopen the decision of the Court on appeal in 2018 with the introduction of “new evidence”.

He opined that this was because, Ecobank failed to comply with the Rules of the Supreme Court and the previous order of the Court in filing the processes.

Mr Thaddeus Sory noted after the statement by Ecobank, he wrote to the Registrar of the Supreme Court on November 21, 2021 and obtained confirmation that there was no pending application for a stay of execution in the Supreme Court before Mr Ofori proceeded to have the Fieri Facias (Fi-Fa) notice pasted on the Head Office Building of Ecobank.

According to the lawyer, the earlier garnishee proceedings referred to in the media release of Ecobank was a different kind of enforcement process from the Fi-Fa that is currently being pursued by him [counsel for the Mr Ofori] on behalf of Mr. Ofori.

Mr Sory emphasized that following a writ of Fi-Fa, which Mr Ofori caused to be issued against the Bank for its failure to pay the sum of GHS96, 304,972.41 ordered by the Supreme Court, was based on the bank’s own admission at a hearing on June 1, 2021.

The statement continued that, “after the pasting by a court bailiff of the Fi-Fa on the Head Office building of Ecobank on Friday, November 26, 2021, Ecobank issued a media release in which they made false and libellous allegations against Mr. Ofori.”

Supposed New Evidence by Ecobank

Mr Sory clarified that it was simply not true that Mr. Ofori tendered in evidence of the investment agreement between Ecobank and himself at any stage in the case.

He stated that the truth, as the Court records and the judgment of the Supreme Court dated, July 25, 2018, confirmed, was that Ecobank itself admitted that the agreed interest rate on the investment made by Mr. Ofori with Ecobank was 30 per cent. “The judgment of the Supreme Court was therefore based on this admission,” he added.

The Lawyer suggested that having regard to the fact that the Supreme Court judgment was based on Ecobank’s own admission, it clearly did not make sense to suggest that Mr. Ofori had forged an investment agreement to prove his case against Ecobank.

The Counsel averred that after the judgment of the Supreme Court, Ecobank surfaced with a document it described as the investment agreement in which was inserted in the figure 15 as the percentage for interest on the investment, which was not the case.

“This is completely at variance with the 30 per cent Ecobank has admitted to. It is Ecobank which has an interest in contradicting its earlier admission by seeking belatedly to introduce a document in which an interest rate of 15 per cent is being put forward three years after the judgment of the Court and even after the failure of the application for review in March 2021.

“It is, indeed, worthy of note that Ecobank tried at least three times without success to have the Court take into account their document with 15 per cent. Ecobank, having failed to get a Court order for this, has apparently, by itself, taken a document for forensic examination and makes libellous accusations against Mr. Ofori by reference to this.”
Mr Sory

The Counsel concluded that, it was a matter of grave concern that after the Court official pasted the Fi-Fa notice on the Ecobank Building following Ecobank failure to make the payment ordered by the Court, a member of Ecobank staff removed the notice, showing contempt for lawful Court process.

Mr Sory, thus, urged Ecobank not to take the law into its own hands.