IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF JUDICATURE IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE, GHANA (COMMERCIAL DIVISION)
HELD IN ACCRA ON THURSDAY THE 16th DAY OF APRIL, 2026
BEFORE HER LADYSHIP JUSTICE AFI AGBANU KUDOMOR (MRS.)
SUIT NO: GJ-CM/RPC/0247/2026
MICHAEL YUSUF …….. PLAINTIFF/APPLICANT
VRS.
1. ZEEPAY GHANA LIMITED …….. 1st DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT
2. ANDREW TAKYI-APPIAH …….. 2nd DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT
RULING
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
The application before the Court filed on behalf of Plaintiff Applicant on 27th February, 2026 is for summary judgment to be entered in Plaintiff’s favour against Defendants for the following reliefs:
a. An order for the payment of;
i. the sum of Eleven Million, Five Hundred and Eighty-Five Thousand, Seven
Hundred and Fifty-Three United States Dollars (USD11,585,753.00.)
ii. the sum of Eight Thousand, Five Hundred Euros (Euros 8,500.00)
iii. the sum of One Million, Four Hundred Thousand Ghana Cedis (GHS1,400,000.00) owed to the Plaintiff.
b. Interest on relief (a) above.
c. Costs including legal fees.
I have read through the motion paper, the affidavit in support and attached Exhibits. I have also read through the affidavit in opposition to the instant application and the Exhibits attached thereto.
Careful consideration has also been given to the submissions made by both Counsel in respect of the instant application.
Plaintiff Applicant’s case is that he engaged the Defendants Respondents to facilitate the transfer of funds to designated persons across the world based on instructions from his clients.
Plaintiff Applicant’s dealings with Defendants Respondents were such that he would inform them on the amount to be transferred either in United States Dollars or Euros, negotiate and agree with the officers of 1st Defendant Respondent on the exchange rate for the intended transfer.
That, when the rate is agreed upon, Plaintiff Applicant will transfer the cedi equivalent of the amount to be transferred to Defendants Respondents, who upon receipt of the said funds will generate a SWIFT advice confirming the details of the transfer, that is, the amount to be transferred, the fees charged and the designated recipient.
When these SWIFT details are confirmed, the Defendants Respondents are obliged to transfer the funds as contained in the said advice.
That, communications in respect of these negotiations of the exchange rate, proof of transferred funds, instructions on how the transferred funds were to be disbursed among others were all held on a WhatsApp Platform made up of Plaintiff Applicant, 1st Defendant Respondent’s Treasurer, his Assistant and 2nd Defendant Respondent. This is evidenced by Exhibit A series.
That, monies that were transferred to Defendants Respondents by Plaintiff Applicant were mostly made into 2nd Defendant Respondent’s personal mobile money wallet. Exhibits B and C are account statements of Plaintiff Applicant’s merchants in respect of the transactions.
According to Plaintiff Applicant, from April 2025 to September, 2025, he conducted multiple successful transactions with Defendants Respondents, during which they fulfilled their obligations by completing the transfers within a reasonable timeframe of two business days.
However, from September 2025 into early October 2025, Defendants Respondents began to deliberately delay in processing transactions which resulted in extended and unexplained holdups. This resulted in numerous recipients not receiving the funds.
That, as of October 2025, there remained several uncompleted transactions with Defendants Respondents, with the total value of the outstanding transactions being
Eleven Million, Nine Hundred and Twenty-Five Thousand, Seven Hundred and Fifty-Three United States Dollars (USD11,925,753.00) and Eight Thousand, Five Hundred Euros (Euros 8,500.00).
According to Plaintiff Applicant, when he notified Defendants Respondents of these failures, a meeting was convened between the parties, during which Defendants Respondents acknowledged receiving the said sums but had failed to effect the transfers of the said funds. That, Defendants Respondents promised to effect the transfer of the pending transactions or refund the said funds to Plaintiff Applicant in installments due to 1st Defendant Respondent’s financial difficulties.
That, Defendants Respondents only paid or completed the transfer of a total amount of
Three Hundred and Forty Thousand United States Dollars (USD340,000.00) out of the total amount of Eleven Million, Nine Hundred and Twenty-Five Thousand, Seven Hundred and Fifty-Three United States Dollars (USD11,925,753.00) leaving an outstanding balance of Eleven Million, Five Hundred and Eighty-Five Thousand, Seven Hundred and Fifty-Three United States Dollars (USD11,585,753.00). Exhibit D series shows all outstanding transactions.
That, the total cedi equivalent of the Eleven Million, Five Hundred and Eighty-Five Thousand, Seven Hundred and Fifty-Three United States Dollars (USD11,585,753.00) is One Hundred and Thirty-Seven Million, One Hundred and Seventy-Four Thousand, One Hundred and Sixteen Ghana Cedis and Forty-Five Pesewas (GHS137,174,116.45) and that of the Eight Thousand, Five Hundred Euros (Euros 8,500.00) is One Hundred and Twenty-one Thousand, Five Hundred and Fifty Ghana Cedis (GHS121,550.00). Exhibit E shows mobile money transfer of One Hundred and Twenty-one Thousand, Five Hundred and Fifty Ghana Cedis (GHS121,550.00), the SWIFT advice in respect of the said transaction as proof of the outstanding amount of Eight Thousand, Five Hundred Euros (Euros 8,500.00).
That, Exhibit F series shows that out of Plaintiff Applicant’s balance of Two Million, Four Hundred and Sixty-Five Thousand, One Hundred Ghana Cedis (GHS2,465,100.00) with Defendants Respondents at the time, they paid One Million Ghana Cedis (GHS1,000,000.00) to Plaintiff Applicant, leaving an outstanding balance of One Million, Four Hundred and Sixty-Five Thousand, One Hundred Ghana Cedis (GHS1,465,100.00).
That, Defendants Respondents have no defence in law to these claims as their Statement of Defence and Counterclaim filed on 11th March, 2026 is a sham and does not raise any triable issues between the parties.
Defendants Respondents, in opposition to the instant application, filed an affidavit in response on 11th March, 2026. That, the instant application is frivolous, vexatious, mischievous and highly misconceived.
That, the Defendants Respondents’ Statement of Defence and Counterclaim raises triable issues amongst which are issues of capacity and locus as well as the propriety of the parties to the instant suit.
According to Defendants Respondents, the documents presented by Plaintiff Applicant in support of the instant application for Summary Judgment do not present the full picture of Plaintiff Applicant’s activities which Defendants Respondents discovered to be fraudulent and criminal.
That, for the above reasons, the instant application ought to be dismissed.
THE LAW GOVERNING THE INSTANT APPLICATION
Order 14 of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2004 (C.L. 47) prescribes the procedure to be followed by a Plaintiff who wishes to obtain summary judgment against his or her adversary.
In the case of Yartel Boat Building Co. v. Annan [1991] 2 GLR 11, Kpegah J (as he then was) had the following to say in respect of Summary Judgment applications:
“…It does not confer on a plaintiff an absolute right to proceed for summary judgment in every case. Its purpose or aim is to permit a plaintiff to obtain summary judgment without necessarily going to trial if his claim is clear and the defendant is unable to set up any defence, or create a situation indicating there are triable issues between him and the plaintiff.”
This principle was applied in the cases of Sanunu v. Salifu[2009]SCGLR 586 @ 590 and Ballast Nedam Ghana BV v. Horizon Marine Construction Ltd [2010] SCGLR 435at437-442.
In summary, the procedure under Order 14 of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2004 (C.I. 47) enables a Plaintiff who has served his Writ of Summons and Statement of Claim on a Defendant to obtain judgment without a trial provided the Plaintiff can prove his or her claim clearly by affidavit evidence. The Court may grant the application where the Defendant is unable to set up a good defence or raise an issue which ought to be tried.
In the case of Sam Jonah v. Duodu-Kumi [2003-2004] 1 SCGLR 50 @54, the
Supreme Court speaking through Akuffo, JSC had the following to say on the purpose of Summary Judgment:
“The objective of Order 14 is to facilitate the early conclusion of actions where it is clear from the pleadings that the defendant therein has no cogent defence..”
Upon a careful perusal of the pleadings and the respective affidavits of the parties in respect of the instant application, the questions that arise here are as follows:
1. Does the Plaintiff Applicant possess the requisite capacity and locus standing to institute the instant action?
2. Is the 2nd Defendant Respondent a proper party in the instant action?
3. Were the Exchange rates used in generating the SWIFT advice emanating approved by Defendant’s management committee?
4. Does the allegation of fraud raised by Defendants Respondents in their Statement of Defence have an effect on the instant application?
ANALYSIS
• Does the Plaintiff Applicant possess the requisite capacity and locus standing to institute the instant action?
As stated earlier on in this ruling, the Court has given careful consideration to the submissions of both Counsel in moving and in opposing the instant application.
Defendants Respondents in their Statement of Defence and Counterclaim counterclaimed against Plaintiff Applicant the reliefs listed thereon.
In the case of Andrews Narh Bi& 3 ORS v. Asafoatse KweteyAkorsorku III, Civil Appeal No. J4/28/2022 dated 27th July, 2023, the Supreme Court speaking through Amadu JSC had the following to say on capacity:
“Capacity references the legal of a person to litigate in terms of whether the party is juristic or not.”
He went on to hold as follows:
“Per the rules of pleadings, setting up a counterclaim against a party manifests an admission that the said party has capacity to initiate an action and litigate.”
In the case of Board of Governors, Achimota School v. Nti Ako Nortei II & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. J4/09/2019 dated 20th May, 2020), Pwamang, JSC had the
following to say on locus standing:
“Locus standing or simply standing, is one of the core principles on which the common law operates. The jurisdiction of the court at common law is only to be invoked by persons who have interest in the subject matter in respect of which they seek relief.”
The Court forms the view after carefully reading the pleadings and affidavit evidence that, Plaintiff Applicant has demonstrated sufficient interest in the subject matter of this dispute which vests in him the necessary standing to mount the instant action.
As discussed earlier as held by the Supreme Court per Amadu JSC, by counterclaiming against the Plaintiff Applicant, the Defendants Respondents have admitted that the Plaintiff Applicant is properly before the Court.
The Court forms the view that Plaintiff Applicant possesses the requisite capacity and locus standing to institute the instant action.
• Is the 2nd Defendant Respondent a proper party to the instant action?
Per the affidavit evidence, a substantial amount of the monies paid to the Defendants Respondents were paid directly to the personal mobile money account of the 2nd Defendant Respondent.
Exhibits B and C are account statements of Plaintiff Applicant’s merchants in respect of the monies paid directly to the 2nd Defendant Respondent’s personal mobile money account.
The Court is of the opinion that 2nd Defendant Respondent is therefore a proper party to the instant action.
• Were the Exchange rates used in generating the SWIFT advice approved by Defendants respondents?
It is trite learning that the actions of officers of a company acting in their official capacity are binding on the company. See Section 147 of the Companies Code, 2019 (Act 992) and the case of Bousiako Company Limited v. Ghana Cocoa Marketing Board (Consolidated) [1982-83] GLR 824
The Court notes that, monies that were transferred to Defendant Respondents were in Ghana cedis and the SWIFT advice clearly shows the fees charged by the Defendants Respondents.
From the above discussions, the Court forms the view that the exchange rates used in generating the SWIFT advice were approved by Defendants Respondents.
• Does the allegation of fraud raised by Defendants Respondents in their Statement of Defence and Counterclaim have a bearing on Plaintiff Applicant’s claims against the Defendants Respondent in respect of the instant application?
Order 14 Rule 12 (c) of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2004 (C.I. 47)
reads as follows:
“12. Summary judgment shall not be given under this Order with respect to (c) a claim or counterclaim based on an allegation offraud.”
From a thorough reading of Plaintiff Applicant’s claims against Defendants Respondents, there are no allegations of fraud based on which this rule would have been applicable.
Additionally, a careful reading of the Defendants Respondents’ Statement of Defence and counterclaim shows that it was not set up as a defence to Plaintiff Applicant’s claims against them.
The Court forms the view that, it was rather raised to aid them to prosecute their counterclaims against Plaintiff Applicant, especially as it was not particularized.
Hence, the allegation of fraud raised by Defendants Respondents in their Statement of Defence and Counterclaim have no bearing on the instant application
From the discussions above, the Court is of the opinion that Defendants Respondents have not been able to raise a reasonable defence to the instant action to be allowed to contest Plaintiff Applicant’s claims against them on the merits. The Court is minded to grant the instant application.
The instant application for Summary Judgment to be entered in Plaintiff’s favour against Defendants on the amount Plaintiff claims which was filed on 27th February, 2026 is hereby granted.
Judgment is entered in Plaintiff’s favour against Defendants on the amount of:
1. Eleven Million, Five Hundred and Eighty-Five Thousand, Seven Hundred and Fifty-Three United States Dollars (USD11,585,753.00.)
2. Eight Thousand, Five Hundred Euros (Euros 8,500.00)
3. One Million, Four Hundred Thousand Ghana Cedis (GHS1,400,000.00)
Interests on the above sums are to be calculated from date of judgment till date of final payment.
Cost of Five Hundred Thousand Ghana Cedis (GHS500,000.00) is awarded against the Defendants/Respondents for Plaintiff/Applicant.
(SGD.)
AFI AGBANU KUDOMOR, J. (MRS.) (JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT)
COUNSEL:
ROBERT NKANSAH BOATENG FOR ALFRED PAAPA DARKWAH FOR PLAINTIFF/APPLICANT – PRESENT
STEPHEN KWAKU GYAN FOR O.K. OSAFO-BUABENG FOR
DEFENDANTS/RESPONDENTS – PRESENT
CASES STATED
1. YARTEL BOAT BUILDING CO. V. ANNAN [1991] 2 GLR 11
2. SANUNU V. SALIFU [2009] SCGLR 586 @ 590
3. BALLAST NEDAM GHANA BV V. HORIZON MARINE CONSTRUCTION LTD [2010] SCGLR 435 AT 437-442
4. SAM JONAH V. DUODU-KUMI [2003-2004] 1 SCGLR 50 @ 54
5. ANDREWS NARH BI & ORS V. ASAFOATSE KWETEY AKORSORKU III, CIVIL APPEAL NO J4/28/2022 DATED 27TH JULY, 2023
6. BOARD OF GOVERNORS, ACHIMOTA SCHOOL V. NILAKO NORTEI II & ORS. (CIVIL APPEAL NO. J4/09/2019 DATED 20TH MAY, 2020)
7. BOUSIAKO COMPANY LIMITED V. GHANA COCOA MARKETING BOARD (CONSOLIDATED) [1982-83] GLR 824
LAW STATED
1. SECTION 147 OF THE COMPANIES CODE, 2019 (ACT 992)
2. ORDER 14 OF THE HIGH COURT (CIVIL PROCEDURE) RULES, 2004 (C.I. 47)
3. ORDER 14 RULE 12 (C) OF THE HIGH COURT (CIVIL PROCEDURE) RULES, 2004 (C.I. 47)
The Law Platform | TLP-HC-2026-17 10
