Share

There appears to be no end in sight to the legal battle between Daniel Ofori and Ecobank Ghana. Lawyers for Mr Ofori, the businessman embroiled in a 96 million cedi judgement debt with Ecobank have threatened to take over the Head office, should the bank fail to honour its debt obligations. This follows an order by the supreme court that the amount “which has been admitted in an affidavit of the Head of Legal Department of the Ecobank Ghana” should be reflected in the entry of judgment of Mr Ofori, while an outstanding amount which was being contested in a dispute in court should go ahead.

Mr Ofori subsequently pasted the order of writ on the Head Office premises of Ecobank Ghana.

But lawyers for Ecobank issued a press statement last week assuring its customers and shareholders that that matter was still being contested.“there is no cause for alarm” as one Daniel Ofori seeks to use the law courts to take over the bank’s head office building in Accra as part of a judgement debt due him” said Ecobank.

The bank described attempts to take over its head office as a desperate and misplaced measure in the light of current proceedings before the Supreme Court. In the statement, the bank said it was using all legal avenues available to ensure the matter gets to its logical conclusions, following findings of a forensic audit that proves Daniel Ofori doctored material parts of documents he used to make his claim in court.

But in a sharp rebuttal, Thaddeus Sory writing on behalf of his client says the best way for the Pan-African Bank to give assurance to customers, shareholders and the general public about its standing is to obey court orders. Mr Sory denied allegations that his client had forged any documents.

“Having regard to the fact that the Supreme Court judgment was based on Ecobank’s own admission, it clearly does not make sense to suggest that Mr Ofori has forged an investment agreement to prove his case against Ecobank. After the judgment of the Supreme Court, Ecobank surfaced with a document it described as the investment agreement in which was inserted the figure 15 as the percentage for interest on the investment”

The statement went on further to suggest that Ecobank had acted contrary to the supreme courts ruling by going ahead to demand forensics to prove its case. “This was completely at variance with the 30% Ecobank had itself 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% is being put forward three years after the judgment of the Supreme Court and even after the failure of the application for review in March 2021”