The ruling on the licence revocation of Unicredit Savings and Loans is expected to be made by an Accra High Court tomorrow, September 26, 2019.
The case was brought before the court by the owners of the savings and loans company.
The Bank of Ghana in its response prayed the court to quash a matter brought before it arguing that the matter should have been handled at an arbitration level before proceeding to court.
But the counsel for Unicredit savings and loans insist that the decision taken by the Bank of Ghana is a breach of natural justice.
The high court judge, Justice George Komsoon thus set 26th September to rule on whether the jurisdiction was proper or not.
HODA Holding Ghana Limited owned by the ex-Minister of Finance, Dr. Kwabena Duffuor, sued the Bank of Ghana (BoG) over the liquidation of Unicredit alongside twenty-two savings and loans companies and finance house companies owned by some prominent individuals in the Ghanaian society.
Unicredit, is asking the High Court Human Right division to quash the Central Bank’s August 15, 2019, decision declaring Unicredit Ghana Limited insolvent and revoking its license to operate as a specialized deposit institution.
The company is also asking for an order of interlocutory injection, restraining BoG, its agents, assigns, privies, hireling among others from interfering in the operation of Unicredit, since the company is not cash-strapped as claimed by the central bank.
In a writ filed on behalf of one Ohene Boakye of House Number 20 Pokuase- Accra by Lawyer Kwasi Adu-Mante, the shareholder asked the court to refer the subject matter to arbitration.
The writ indicated that the company cannot be described as insolvent, because it had an estimated GHc54 Million with Unibank which had been taken over by BoG as part of the Consolidated Bank, and the majority shareholder of Unibank is in court with the same BoG fighting to have Unibank, back.
It explained that on March 20, 2018, the BoG, had appointed an administrator under Act 930 to take over and streamline the activities of Unibank.
It said with the said appointment came restriction of the company that is HODA Holdings, the company’s financial situation was gravely affected, but attempt are under way to retrieve the company’s investment with the Consolidated Bank.
Aside the GHC54 million, the writ said that at all time, the Unicredit’s investment totaling an estimated GHC 164 million is also held by Unisecurities Ghana Limited, however, the said investment with Unisecuirty, were impaired with the capital adequacy ratio contrary due to the regulatory standards set by the BoG as a result of the takeover.
The lawyers insisted that, BoG is aware of the situation Unicredit finds itself, as a result of BoG’s restrictions on the company to access its own funds through the receiver appointed to oversee the transaction occasioned by the revocation of Unibank license, yet went ahead to revoke the license of Unicredit.
The writ said that BoG, had acted beyond it powers under Act 930 by unduly interfering in the affairs of the Unicredit by revoking its license, adding the central bank’s inexplicable attitude, points directly to a premeditated agenda to cause it a grave economic hardship.
The writ insisted that as at August 16, 2019, Unicredit, was solvent in terms of Act 930.
Ohene Boakye, described the decision by the BoG, as arbitrary, malicious and capricious, because it contravene the Constitution of Ghana.
Unicredit, further insisted that at no point in time, did BoG indicate to them that the company, had become insolvent to warrant a revocation of its license based on empirical facts.
It said BoG’s action is purely on deductions informed by deliberate creation of an extreme difficult financial situation to induce the company and its shareholders to give away Unicredit.
The writ said Ohene Boakye, stands to lose gravely if the decision of the BoG is not quash by the High Court, adding that unless the Supreme Court restrains BoG, it agents, assigns will go ahead and take control and interfere with the operations of the company, to his detriment and the detriment of depositors of the company.

Spread the love on your social media page