The Receiver appointed to liquidate Unibank has filed an application in court docket to halt an arbitration hearing with shareholders of the lender.
The software filed by attorneys for the Receiver, Nii Amanor Dodoo of Accounting firm KPMG, is asking the courtroom to also make a determination on the prior ruling which directed the situation for arbitration.
This should really suggest the predicted hearing did not occur on as predicted a the Accra Higher Court, presided more than by Justice Jenifer Dadzie.
The Receiver referred the make a difference to courtroom after proprietors of Unibank sought to obstacle the bank’s liquidation by Financial institution of Ghana.
A previous Justice of the Supreme Court, Professor Justice Samuel Day-Bah, who was appointed by the Industrial Division of the Accra Significant Court to arbitrate in the case of the defunct uniBank, had written to the events involved in the subject to look prior to him on Wednesday, June 19, 2019.
The look of the 16 shareholders, the receiver of the financial institution, Nii Amanor Dodoo, and the Lawyer-Normal will enable Prof. Justice Day-Bah, as the sole arbitrator, to figure out no matter if or not the revocation of uniBank’s course-a person banking licence by the centra bank was performed in accordance with the tenets of the law.
The Accra Large Court presided more than by Justice Jenifer Dadzie, referred the issues contained in a counter-claim submitted by attorneys for Dr Kwabena Duffour II, 1 of the 16 shareholders of the financial institution, for arbitration.
The counter-assert argued that the revocation of uniBank’s licence was illegal.
The courtroom, pursuant to provisions of Act 930, referred the matter of the revocation to arbitration and appointed Prof. Justice Day-Bah as the sole arbitrator on May well 17, 2019.
The court docket indicated that its choice to appoint an arbitrator did not, having said that, stop it from adjudicating on the other counter-promises and that the presiding decide would listen to other reliefs in the counter-statements that did not fall less than the ambit of Act 930.
It was the considered watch of the court docket that not all the reliefs in the counter-claim right challenged the revocation of uniBank’s licence and the appointment of the receiver.
The reliefs included a declaration that the receiver did not have the appropriate to “interfere with the sanctity of any deal or transaction entered into in between uniBank and any of its clients or shareholders”.
A further relief is an get for common, punitive and exemplary damages.
The ruling by the courtroom was as a consequence of an application filed by the receiver urging the court docket to dismiss the entire counter-assert by the shareholders