DANIEL OFORI vs. ECOBANK GHANA LTD

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF JUDICATURE

IN THE SUPREME COURT

ACCRA – A.D. 2026

CORAM: AMADU JSC (PRESIDING)

ADJEI-FRIMPONG JSC

DZAMEFE JSC

BARTELS-KODWO JSC

AMALEBOBA JSC

CIVIL MOTION

NO. J8/97/2021

6TH MAY, 2026

DANIEL OFORI …….. PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT/APPELLANT

/RESPONDENT

VRS

1. ECOBANK GHANA LIMITED ……….. 1ST DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT/

RESPONDENT/APPLICANT

2. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE

COMMISSION DEFENDANTS/RESPONDENTS/

3. GHANA STOCK EXCHANGE RESPONDENTS

RULING

TANKO AMADU, JSC:

INTRODUCTION

The issue provoked for determination in this application simple as it may appear, has been vehemently contested by counsel for the parties with intensity. The 1st Defendant/ Respondent/Respondent/Applicant (hereinafter referred to as the “Applicant”) invites this court to determine whether the Plaintiff/Appellant/Appellant/Respondent (hereinafter referred to as the “Respondent”) who is Judgment/Creditor is entitled to compound interest on the judgment sum of Gh¢6,162,240.00, between the period of 2nd June 2008 (the investment date) to 25th July 2018 (the date of judgment) to be calculated monthly or annually? For the Applicant, although per earlier decisions of this Court, the Respondent is entitled to compound interest on the judgment sum, the same is to be calculated annually as per the opinion expressed by the Bank of Ghana pursuant to an order of this court. The Respondent however refutes this assertion, contending that, per the Applicant’s own practice and representations, he is entitled to monthly compound interest as a Judgment/Creditor.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

On the 13th day of May 2021, the Applicant applied to this court for an order setting aside the Respondent’s Notice of Amended Entry of Judgment filed on 6th April 2021.

The application was anchored essentially on the claim that, the Respondent had miscalculated the amounts due him on the principal investments and the interest thereon as per his Amended Entry of Judgment dated 6th April 2021. The Respondent contended that by the commulative effect of the substantive judgment and rulings on interest by the Supreme Court, the interest payable on his investment was 30% compounded monthly. This when calculated gave him a figure of GHC142,623,613.25. This figure attracted interest of 13,34% and when calculated in accordance with of the decisions of the Supreme Court the total amount due and owing as at that date came to GHC151,018,312.85.

The Applicant’s position was that the compound interest awarded by the Supreme Court was to be compounded annually and not monthly. When annual compound interest is used for the calculation the figure comes to GHC89,852,411.88. If the interest rate of 13.34% is applied to this figure the total amount due and owing at that date was GHC96,304,972.41. The Applicant admitted that the judgment debt was GHC96,304,972.41 and not the figure that was endorsed on the Amended Entry of Judgment by the Respondent.

On the 1st day of June 2021, this court (differently constituted) heard the application to set aside the Amended Entry of Judgment and granted same in part, as per Exhibit KWO6 attached to the Supplementary Affidavit filed by the Applicant on the 18th of February 2026. The court ruled as follows:

The application to set aside the Amended Entry of Judgment filed on 6th April, 2021 is hereby granted as prayed. The Court hereby substitute the admitted sum of Gh¢96,304,972.41 which has been admitted in the affidavit of the Head of Legal Department of the 1st Defendant/Respondent/ Respondent/Applicant. The outstanding amount which is being disputed is hereby adjourned for determination”.

Subsequent thereto, on 29th July 2021, this court, further ruled and ordered as follows as per Exhibit KWO8 attached to the Supplementary Affidavit filed by the Applicant on 18th February 2026:

“We are of the opinion that the parties herein differ in the calculation of interest as regards the compounding of interest daily, weekly and annually. As this is not statutory and thus governed by any statutory, we hereby order the Central Bank that, is Bank of Ghana to offer its opinion on the subject. The Registrar is to lodge a copy of this order to the Bank of Ghana within one week from today. The parties are to co-operate with the Central Bank which should file a report to this Court within one month from today. Adjourned Sine die.”

THE OPINION OF THE BANK OF GHANA (BOG)

Per a letter dated 9th December 2021 (Exhibit KWO9) the Bank of Ghana per its second Deputy Governor , referencing the order of the Court for its opinion, expressed itself as follows:

“The Bank of Ghana has not prescribed any industry standard for the computation of interests on Call/Fixed deposits. The mode of computing compounded interests on investment product is, therefore, based on terms agreed between a bank and its customer.

In the present case, where the parties do not seem to have agreed on how the interest should be compounded, we would recommend that the interest be compounded annually, since the investment has travelled over a decade.”

THE SUPPLEMENTARY AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF THE APPLICATION

Following these developments, and pursuant to the order of this court for the Applicant to file the report/opinion of the Bank of Ghana, the Applicant deposed inter alia that, the court had in previous decisions made pronouncements suggestive that, the compound interest was to be calculated annually and not monthly. The Applicant refers to the principal judgment of 25th July 2018 in this regard, as well as the ruling of the court dated 17th June 2020. In the latter decision this Court pronounced inter alia as follows:

“From the nature of the investment contract entered into by the parties, its effectiveness depends on the manner the principal and interest were to be dealt with after each year because the reason for the contract was clearly in order for the Plaintiff to earn interest on his money and for 1st Defendant to have use of the funds for its banking business. However, the parties did not set a date for the fixed deposit to cease but the rate of interest as agreed at 30% per annum.”

According to the Applicant, the BoG’s report affirmed the court’s long-held and sound position that pre-judgment compound interest awarded by this Court on the Call deposit must be calculated annually. The Applicant asserts that, on 19th August 2025, it paid the sum of Gh¢96,304,972.41 to the Respondent. And that, as of 19th August 2025, the total amount due Respondent was Gh¢136,593,032.49 comprising principal of Gh¢77,088,776.30 and accrued interest of Gh¢59,526.18 at the said date.

The Applicant further asserts that, based on its appropriation, which was affirmed by this Court and accepted by the Respondent, the sum of Gh¢96,304,972.41 applied on a pro rata basis to the outstanding principal and the outstanding interest on the Call Deposit Judgment/Debt. The pro rata basis, Gh¢54,351,472,69 of the Gh¢96,304,972.41 the Applicant paid on 19th August 2025 had reduced the principal from Gh¢77,088,776 to Gh¢22,737,303.61. The Applicant further contends that, on the same pro rata basis, the remaining sum of GH¢41,953,499.72 of the Gh¢96,304,972.41 Applicant paid on 19th August 2025 reduced the accrued interest from Gh¢59,504,256.18 to Gh¢17,550,756.46.

Furthermore, the Applicant asserts that, on 3rd October 2025, it paid a further Gh¢45,358,009.26 to Respondent to satisfy the outstanding debt, comprising both principal and interest owed to Respondent as at the date of payment. It is the view of the Applicant that, as at 3rd October 2025 the outstanding balance due and owed to the Respondent was Gh¢40,6662,010.85 comprising principal of Gh¢22,737,303.61 and accrued interest of Gh¢17,924,707.24. The Applicant thus submits that, as at 3rd October 2025, it had duly and fully discharged and overpaid Respondent in the sum of Gh¢4,695,998.41 and needs a refund of the excess sum.

RESPONDENT’S FURTHER SUPPLEMENTARY AFFDIAVIT IN OPPOSITION

The Respondent denied the material depositions in the Applicant’s supplementary affidavit regarding the timing of payments, and the specific sums due and paid. On the core issue for determination before the court, the Respondent contended that, as a matter of banking law and practice, all interest rates are expressed to be calculated over specific periods of each year’s calculation which his annually, but the manner of calculation whether weekly, monthly, bi-annually or annually depends on the agreement between the parties.

For the Respondent, it is completely irrelevant that on some occasions, the court used the word “annually”, which point, the Respondent contends is completely irrelevant for the purposes of the application before the court because the final order of the court which is the reason the parties are before the court is for the court to make the determination of the manner for doing the calculation and for which the court desires the opinion of the Bank of Ghana regarding the period of calculation of accrued interest.

The Respondent asserts that, in the letter from the Bank of Ghana, the BoG confirmed that, the calculation of interest depends on the agreement of the parties but advised that since some time had lapsed it should be calculated annually. According to the Respondent, he mounted his case for a monthly calculation of the interest based on the Applicant’s own representations to the public.

The Respondent acknowledges that, the Applicant made payment of Gh¢96,304,972.41 on August 19th 2025 although it was required to do so by the order of the Court since 1st June 2021. The Respondent further asserts that, on 19th August 2025, interest had accrued at the rate of 13.34% from the said 14th April 2021 to 19th August 2025, when the Applicant paid the Gh¢96,304,972.14 in the sum of Gh¢55,893,612.69. (See paragraph 30 of the affidavit of the Respondent filed on 17th February, 2026).

The Respondent further asserts that, the Applicant acknowledged that interest had accrued on the Gh¢96,304,972.41 from 14th April 2021, but instead of the Gh¢55,893,612.69 due him on 19th August 2025, the Applicant paid the sum of Gh¢45,358,009.26 on 3rd October 2025 by which date the sum due him had further accrued interest to a sum of Gh¢56,812,873.65 thereby underpaying him the sum of Gh¢11,454,864.39 which also started to accrue interest at rate of 13.34% per annum from 3rd October 2025.

PRELIMINARY LEGAL OBJECTION

In a further supplementary affidavit in support of the application, filed on the 27th of February 2026, the Applicant’s objection to the propriety of the reliance on correspondence exchanged between the parties during mediation (Exhibits DA8, DA9 and DA10) was deferred for resolution together with the substantive issue before the court. Learned Counsel for the Applicant relied on Section 105 of the Evidence act and submitted the correspondence or communication was privileged having arisen in the course of an attempted mediation of the dispute. The Applicant’s counsel relied on cases such as JEBEILE VS. NORWICH UNION FIRE INSURANCE SOCIETY LTD. [1961] GLR 252; DIKYI & ORS. VS. AMEEN SANGARI INDSUTIRES LTD. [1992] 2 GLR 380.

In the submission of Respondent’s counsel, we note that this objection was not addressed. Indeed, Section 105 of the Evidence Act, 1975 (NRCD 323) excepts the reception into evidence, communication emanating from attempts at settlement or mediation, unless the parties do not intend same to be privileged. The Section provides as follows:

“A person has a privilege to refuse to disclose and to prevent any other person from disclosing to the tribunal of fact information concerning the furnishing, offering or accepting by such person or his authorised representative of valuable consideration in compromising a claim which was disputed either as to validity or amount and information concerning conduct or statements made as an integral part of such compromise negotiations.

A person has no privilege under this section if his, or his authorised representative’s conduct or statements relating to the compromise were made with the intention that they would not be privileged from disclosure to a tribunal of fact.”

From our consideration of the objection, we do not think that, the correspondence between the parties are not privileged. We are of the view that, having regard to the serious acrimony between the parties for many years, they desired at anytime to revert to the court should any attempt at settlement fail. Therefore, we do not think that, either party intended their proposal or counter-proposal as the case may be, to be used to prejudice their respective cases should they return to the court. In our view therefore, the objection against the admissibility of Exhibits DA8,DA9, DA10 is well founded and same is upheld. Exhibits DA8, DA9, DA10 are hereby rejected.

THE SUBSTANTIVE ISSUE

As aforesaid the key issue for resolution in this application revolves around the calculation of compound interest. While the Applicant makes a case for same to be calculated annually, the Respondent contends that, per the Applicant’s own practice and in accordance with industry practice, same should be monthly.

In the Applicant’s view, this court has made previous pronouncements accepting a yearly calculation. However, if such pronouncements were sacrosanct and binding, this court would not have made an order for the BoG to express its opinion. We share in the earlier position of this court that, the manner of calculation of interest in terms of the period it becomes exigible has not been provided for, nor regulated by statute hence the need to seek expert opinion. Further, we are of the view that, the issue is not foreclosed irrespective of the previous statements by this court. Therefore, the attempt at elevating this controversy on the altar of issue estoppel, as appears to have been made by the Applicant is in our view wholly untenable.

Having said that, what is the import of the opinion of the BoG, and its impact on resolving the controversy? Per Exhibit KWO9, the BoG expressed its opinion as follows:

“…The Bank of Ghana has not prescribed any industry standard for the computation of interest on Call/Fixed deposits. The mode of computing compounded interests on investment products, is, therefore, based on terms agreed between a bank and its customer

In the present case, where the parties doe no seem to have agreed on how interest should be compounded, we would recommend that the interest be compounded annually, since the investment has travelled over a decade.”

From this opinion, the BoG concedes the absence of an agreement as to how interest is to be compounded. Yet, the BoG suggests that, since the investment has travelled over a decade, the interest should be compounded annually. Whether it is banking practice or policy of the BoG, that, in the absence of an agreement of the parties, investments over decades should attract annual compound interest, is never apparent from the letter from the Central Bank. Moreso, the BoG failed to demonstrate the equity or justness in the recommendation it proposed.

Be that as it may, must this court accept the recommendation of the BoG as the just option having regard to the circumstances of this case? To answer this question, the court must weigh the suggestion against the legal contention of the Respondent to the effect that, per the Applicant’s own practice, it calculates compound interest on its investments monthly. According to the Respondent, this practice by the Applicant has been represented to the public, and therefore creates an estoppel against the Applicant.

This position being urged by the Respondent on the proper approach to determining the manner for calculating compound interest on the facts of this case requires the Court to take into account the provisions of section 177(1)(b)&(2)(b) of the Evidence Act, 1976 (NRCD 323) which is as follows;

177. Extrinsic evidence affecting the contents of a writing

(1) Except as otherwise provided by the rules of equity, terms set forth in a writing intended by the party or parties to the writing as a final expression of intention or agreement with respect to those terms may not be contradicted by evidence of a prior declaration of intention, of a prior agreement or of a contemporaneous oral agreement or declaration of intention, but may be explained or supplemented,

(a) by evidence of consistent additional terms unless the Court finds the writing to have been intended also as a complete and exclusive statement of the terms of the intention or agreement, but a will and a registered writing conveying immovable property shall be deemed to be a complete and exclusive statement of the terms of the intention of agreement; and

(b) by a course of dealing or usage of trade or by course of performance.

(2) Subsection (1) does not preclude the admission of evidence relevant to the interpretation of terms in a writing.

(3) For the purposes of subsection (1),

(a) “a course of dealing” means a sequence of previous conduct between parties to a particular transaction which can fairly be regarded as establishing a common basis of understanding for

interpreting their expressions and other conduct;

(b) “a usage of trade” means a practice or method of dealing in a place, vocation or trade as to justify an expectation that it will be observed with respect to the transaction in question;

(c) “course of performance” means, in respect only of a contract which involves repeated occasions for performance by either party with knowledge of the nature of the performance and opportunity for objection to it by the other, a manner of performance accepted or acquiesced in without objection.

26. Exhibits B and B1 show Applicant’s online Systematic Investment Plan calculator which includes monthly compound interest calculation. The Respondent further refers to Exhibits C, C1, C2 and C3 being calculation of interest on monthly compound interest computation by other industry players.

The Applicant did not dispute that, Exhibits B and B1 were its representations to the public. The Applicant has not asserted nor produced any evidence that, the Respondent’s investment was exclusive or special in the sense of not falling within the method of calculations as exhibited per Exhibits B and B1. Moreover, the Applicant has not produced any alternative calculation of interests on investments on the nature of the Respondent’s within its operations before the court. What is clear to us therefore, is that, the Respondent is estopped from seeking to treat the Respondent herein in a manner different from its normal usage of trade.

We acknowledge the settled position of the law that, there must be cogent basis for the rejection of expert evidence by the Court. Implicit in this position, is a recognition, and indeed a statutory provision that, expert opinion is not binding on the court.

In FENEKU VS. JOHN TEYE [2001-2002] SCGLR 985, this Court held that :

“The principle of law regarding expert evidence was that the judge need not accept any of the evidence offered. The judge was only to be assisted by such expert evidence to arrive at a conclusion of his own after examining the whole of the evidence before him. The expert evidence was only a guide to arrive at the conclusions. See also IN RE AGYEKUM (DEC’D) [2005-2006] SCGLR 851.”

Thus, with respect to the estoppel created against the Applicant arising from representations made to the public including the Respondent of monthly compound interest on investments; the recommendation of the BoG for annual compound interest calculation, over a decade; we are of the considered view that, that estoppel created against the Applicant substantially outweighs the recommendation of the BoG. In the circumstances, this court is unable to accept the recommendation of the BoG as conclusive of the issue. On the contrary, we hold that, the method of calculating the compound interest on the Respondent’s principal investment sum should be monthly and not annually.

CONCLUSION

From the totality of the evidence before us and the application of the relevant law, the court holds that, the Respondent is entitled to monthly compounded interest on its principal investment sum of Gh¢6,162,240.00, calculated at a monthly compound interest rate of 30% from the date of investment being 2nd June 2008 till date of the judgment which is 25th July 2018 and thereafter the judgment debt shall attract simple interest at the rate of 13.34% till date of final payment. This determination shall be the basis upon which any outstanding amount payable to the Respondent by the Applicant is to be computed.

(SGD.) I. O. TANKO AMADU

(JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT)

(SGD.) R. ADJEI-FRIMPONG

(JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT)

(SGD.) S. DZAMEFE

(JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT)

(SGD.) J. BARTELS-KODWO

(JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT)

(SGD.) H. AMALEBOBA

(JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT)

COUNSEL

ACE ANAN ANKOMAH ESQ. FOR THE 1ST DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT/

RESPONDENT/APPLICANT WITH DAAD AKWESI ESQ. AND EBO DANTSE

BENJAMIN ESQ.

TSATSU TSIKATA ESQ. FOR THE PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT/APPELLANT/

RESPONDENT WITH NANA BOAKYE MENSAH-BONSU ESQ. AND PRINCE

NOEL DANQUAH ESQ.