The Receiver appointed to liquidate Unibank has filed an application in court to halt an arbitration hearing with shareholders of the bank.
The application filed by lawyers for the Receiver, Nii Amanor Dodoo of Accounting firm KPMG, is asking the court to also make a determination on the previous ruling which directed the case for arbitration.
This should mean the expected hearing did not come on as expected a the Accra High Court, presided over by Justice Jenifer Dadzie.
The Receiver referred the matter to court after owners of Unibank sought to challenge the bank’s liquidation by Bank of Ghana.
A former Justice of the Supreme Court, Professor Justice Samuel Date-Bah, who was appointed by the Commercial Division of the Accra High Court to arbitrate in the case of the defunct uniBank, had written to the parties involved in the matter to appear before him on Wednesday, June 19, 2019.
ALSO READ: Prof Date-Bah begins UniBank arbitration today June 19
The appearance of the 16 shareholders, the receiver of the bank, Nii Amanor Dodoo, and the Attorney-General will allow Prof. Justice Date-Bah, as the sole arbitrator, to determine whether or not the revocation of uniBank’s class-one banking licence by the central bank was done in accordance with the tenets of the law.
The Accra High Court presided over by Justice Jenifer Dadzie, referred the matters contained in a counter-claim filed by lawyers for Dr Kwabena Duffour II, one of the 16 shareholders of the bank, for arbitration.
The counter-claim argued that the revocation of uniBank’s licence was illegal.
The court, pursuant to provisions of Act 930, referred the matter of the revocation to arbitration and appointed Prof. Justice Date-Bah as the sole arbitrator on May 17, 2019.
The court indicated that its decision to appoint an arbitrator did not, however, stop it from adjudicating on the other counter-claims and that the presiding judge would hear other reliefs in the counter-claims that did not fall under the ambit of Act 930.
It was the considered view of the court that not all the reliefs in the counter-claim directly challenged the revocation of uniBank’s licence and the appointment of the receiver.
The reliefs included a declaration that the receiver did not have the right to “interfere with the sanctity of any contract or transaction entered into between uniBank and any of its customers or shareholders”.
Another relief is an order for general, punitive and exemplary damages.
The ruling by the court was as a result of an application filed by the receiver urging the court to dismiss the entire counter-claim by the shareholders.
