You are here: HomeBusiness2021 06 25Article 1294708

Business News of Friday, 25 June 2021


UniBank Receiver Amanor Dodoo to appeal ruling of Commercial Court

Nii Amanor Dodoo has been declared an illegal Receiver of UniBank Nii Amanor Dodoo has been declared an illegal Receiver of UniBank

• The Commercial Court has ruled that Nii Amanor Dodoo's appointment as Receiver of UniBank is illegal

• In a statement, Amanor has disagreed with the ruling

• He has therefore instructed his lawyers to appeal the ruling

In the matter of the Commercial Court’s ruling that Nii Amanor Dodoo, Receiver for UniBank’s appointment as illegal, he has expressed his disagreement with the ruling, instructing his lawyers to appeal.

Reacting to the ruling, in a statement Nii Amnor Dodoo wrote that, “I have taken note of the ruling of the Commercial Court, which has declared my appointment as the Receiver of uniBank Ghana Limited, as illegal. I disagree with the ruling and have instructed my lawyers to appeal. “

Justice Afi Agbanu-Kudemor, who presided over the case, made the declaration Thursday, June 24, 2021, granting an application by Dr Kwabena Duffuor to strike out a writ of summons issued by the receiver for illegality.

Also, she ruled for a consequent lack of capacity in the takeover of Unibank to be struck out, reports

Sources close to the Bank of Ghana have hinted that Amanor finds the court’s ruling surprising as it is completely inconsistent with the ruling rendered by another High Court a couple of days ago on the same issue of his validity.

Earlier this week however, an Accra High Court ruled that the Receiver of defunct uniBank, Nii Amanor Dodoo, could testify in the criminal trial of the bank’s founder, Dr. Kwabena Duffour, and other officials.

A Court of Appeal Judge who was hearing the matter as an additional High Court judge dismissed an objection from Dr. Duffuor and others challenging the validity of Mr. Dodoo’s appointment by Bank of Ghana as Receiver of uniBank and ruled that Mr. Dodoo’s appointment was not at variance with Act 930 and he could therefore testify against the accused persons, the statement said.