Ghana Case Law

Sintex Containers Ghana Limited v Decorplast Limited (CM/RPC/0661/2023)

Sintex Containers Ghana Limited v Decorplast Limited (CM/RPC/0661/2023) [2025] GHAHC 88 (2 June 2025)

Court

High Court

Case number

CM/RPC/0661/2023

Plaintiff proved by documentary evidence that it advanced US$500,000.00 to Defendant. Defendant failed to produce credible evidence of repayment. Defendant's arguments regarding the transaction being personal and evidence of repayment were rejected as not credible or supported. Judgment for Plaintiff for the sum claimed with interest and costs.

Source excerpt

• Loan recovery
• Corporate authority
• Burden of proof
• Electronic evidence

Read case analysis

HGS LIMITED VRS. BONSU AND ANOTHER (OCC/40/2022)

HGS LIMITED VRS. BONSU AND ANOTHER (OCC/40/2022) [2025] GHAHC 52 (21 May 2025)

Court

High Court

Case number

OCC/40/2022

The 1st Defendant, as a director of the Plaintiff, breached his fiduciary duty by placing himself in a conflict of interest position, being a director of both Plaintiff and 2nd Defendant, which supplied the same products to the same customer without disclosure or consent as required by law. However, there was no sufficient evidence that confidential information or trade secrets were used, nor was a cause of action established against the 2nd Defendant. Nominal damages were appropriate as no substantial loss was proven.

Source excerpt

• Fiduciary duties of directors
• Conflict of interest
• Corporate governance
• Use of confidential information
• Remedies for breach of duty

Read case analysis

OSEI VRS. OFFICE OF THE REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES AND OTHERS (OCC/41/2021)

OSEI VRS. OFFICE OF THE REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES AND OTHERS (OCC/41/2021) [2025] GHAHC 54 (26 February 2025)

Court

High Court

Case number

OCC/41/2021

The High Court held that the plaintiff and another were original shareholders of Modtintac Company Ltd, and that later record changes were unlawful and fraudulent.

• Shareholding disputes
• Directorship
• Company records
• Fraudulent alteration of records
• Estate administration
• Company-law

Read case analysis

SIERRA ENGINEERING SERV. LTD VRS. BEIJING ZHONGRUI XINDA CONST. CO. LTD AND ANOTHER (C11/106/23)

SIERRA ENGINEERING SERV. LTD VRS. BEIJING ZHONGRUI XINDA CONST. CO. LTD AND ANOTHER (C11/106/23) [2025] GHACC 18 (20 February 2025)

Court

Circuit Court

Case number

C11/106/23

The first defendant is not a registered entity in Ghana and cannot be sued; the claim against it is dismissed for lack of capacity. There is no contractual nexus between the plaintiff and the second defendant, nor evidence of direct promise, control, or guarantee by the second defendant. The plaintiff failed to prove its claim against the second defendant on a balance of probabilities. Both claims are dismissed.

Source excerpt

• Capacity to sue and be sued
• Privity of contract
• Vicarious liability
• Subcontracting
• Jurisdiction
• Award of costs

Read case analysis

OTOO VRS. IPY BUSINESS LINK CO LTD AND OTHERS (OCC/07/2023)

OTOO VRS. IPY BUSINESS LINK CO LTD AND OTHERS (OCC/07/2023) [2025] GHAHC 59 (31 January 2025)

Court

High Court

Case number

OCC/07/2023

The 1st Defendant company was contractually bound to pay the Plaintiff 6% monthly on his share value and to return his capital, with no condition precedent of operational returns. The 2nd and 3rd Defendants were not personally liable as no specific acts were pleaded against them distinct from their roles as directors. The Plaintiff is entitled to the outstanding principal and interest, and post-judgment interest at the agreed rate.

Source excerpt

• Shareholding
• Dividend payment
• Directors' liability
• Estoppel
• Interest on judgment debt

Read case analysis

KUFFOUR AND ANOTHER VRS. BULLIONLINK GH LTD AND OTHERS (MISC/07/2025)

KUFFOUR AND ANOTHER VRS. BULLIONLINK GH LTD AND OTHERS (MISC/07/2025) [2025] GHAHC 58 (29 January 2025)

Court

High Court

Case number

MISC/07/2025

The only proved act of oppression was the purported removal of the 1st applicant as company secretary through contrived and forged documentation, which was not sanctioned by the company constitution or law. The 1st applicant did not resign, and the appointment of the 5th respondent as secretary is void. No other allegations of oppression were proved. The 1st applicant is entitled to reinstatement, cancellation of the 5th respondent's appointment, remuneration for the period of unlawful removal, and an order for the company to purchase his shares. The 2nd applicant's claims are dismissed for l…

Source excerpt

• Oppression of minority shareholders
• Company secretary removal
• Share purchase orders
• Corporate governance

Read case analysis

CHY TRADING LTD. VRS. BIGLEBB CONSTRUCTION & CRUSHING LTD. AND ANOTHER (CM/RPC/0600/2019)

CHY TRADING LTD. VRS. BIGLEBB CONSTRUCTION & CRUSHING LTD. AND ANOTHER (CM/RPC/0600/2019) [2025] GHAHC 27 (28 January 2025)

Court

High Court

Case number

CM/RPC/0600/2019

The High Court dismissed Chy Trading’s commercial claim for lack of locus standi, holding that the plaintiff failed to prove capacity or effective notice of assignment.

• Assignment of debt
• Locus standi
• Corporate veil
• Contractual capacity
• Assignment-of-debt
• Locus-standi

Read case analysis

B5 PLUS LTD. VRS. SPECIAL STEEL LTD. AND OTHERS (CM/RPC/0687/2018)

B5 PLUS LTD. VRS. SPECIAL STEEL LTD. AND OTHERS (CM/RPC/0687/2018) [2025] GHAHC 28 (27 January 2025)

Court

High Court

Case number

CM/RPC/0687/2018

The High Court partly upheld B5 Plus Ltd.’s debt claims against Special Steel Ltd., but dismissed the claims against Alex Asiedu for lack of personal liability.

• Loan agreements
• Credit sales
• Corporate liability
• Director liability
• Debt recovery
• Debt-recovery

Read case analysis

UNIVERSAL MERCHANT BANK LTD vrs ABI CAPITAL FINANCIAL (J4/72/2023)

UNIVERSAL MERCHANT BANK LTD vrs ABI CAPITAL FINANCIAL (J4/72/2023) [2025] GHASC 5 (22 January 2025)

Court

Supreme Court

Case number

J4/72/2023

The 2nd Defendant breached his fiduciary duty by authorising transactions beyond his authority and without Board approval, exposing the Bank to statutory and financial risk. The Plaintiff Bank was entitled to damages for breach of duty and to recover the GHC349,593.75 paid out in the irregular transaction, as the Defendants had actual or constructive knowledge of the irregularity. The 2nd Defendant was afforded fair hearing and his dismissal was lawful; his counterclaim for wrongful termination and damages was dismissed.

Source excerpt

• Fiduciary duties of directors
• Ultra vires acts
• Wrongful termination
• Restitution
• Corporate governance
• Breach of contract

Read case analysis

O’SVAN BOYE LIMITED VRS ANAGBO (J4/24/2024)

O’SVAN BOYE LIMITED VRS ANAGBO (J4/24/2024) [2024] GHASC 33 (24 July 2024)

Court

ghasc

Supreme Court divided on whether a defendant’s admissions in pleadings barred a later challenge to a company plaintiff’s capacity to sue.

• Capacity to sue
• Pleadings
• Estoppel by admission
• Burden of proof
• Land title registration
• Capacity-to-sue

Read case analysis