THE REPUBLIC VRS BANK OF GHANA [2024] GHASC 40 (26 June 2024)

THE REPUBLIC VRS BANK OF GHANA [2024] GHASC 40 (26 June 2024)

The Supreme Court held that section 123 of Act 930 provides a distinct and peremptory regime for revocation of banking licenses on grounds of insolvency, separate from the procedures in section 16(3). The Bank of Ghana acted within its statutory authority, and the evidence showed substantive communication and opportunity for Unicredit to address its deficiencies. There was no breach of natural justice or procedural impropriety. The Court of Appeal erred by conflating the procedures and exceeding the remit of judicial review by delving into the merits and construction of the statute beyond the face of the record.

Citation
THE REPUBLIC VRS BANK OF GHANA [2024] GHASC 40 (26 June 2024)
Parties
Respondent/respondent/appellant: Bank of Ghana; Applicant/appellant/respondent: Hoda Holdings Limited
Court
ghasc
Jurisdiction
Ghana
Judgment Date
26 June 2024
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Final Judgment
Outcome
appeal allowed; judgment of Court of Appeal reversed; High Court judgment restored (except as to injunction/arbitration direction)
Legal Topics
Judicial Review, Natural Justice, Revocation of Banking License, Supervisory Jurisdiction, Procedural Impropriety
Source Language
eng
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Banking Law Judicial Review Natural Justice Revocation of Banking License Supervisory Jurisdiction Procedural Impropriety

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 25 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bank of Ghana

Respondent/respondent/appellant

Hoda Holdings Limited

Applicant/appellant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Bank of Ghana was required to follow the procedures in section 16(3) of Act 930 before revoking Unicredit Ghana Limited's license under section 123 of Act 930
  2. 2 Whether the revocation of Unicredit's license breached the audi alteram partem rule of natural justice
  3. 3 Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of Act 930 and the requirements for revocation of a banking license

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that section 123 of Act 930 provides a distinct and peremptory regime for revocation of banking licenses on grounds of insolvency, separate from the procedures in section 16(3). The Bank of Ghana acted within its statutory authority, and the evidence showed substantive communication and opportunity for Unicredit to address its deficiencies. There was no breach of natural justice or procedural impropriety. The Court of Appeal erred by conflating the procedures and exceeding the remit of judicial review by delving into the merits and construction of the statute beyond the face of the record.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed; judgment of Court of Appeal reversed; High Court judgment restored (except as to injunction/arbitration direction)

Orders

  • Application for certiorari dismissed
  • Application for injunction refused