Nyanteh v Brooks Assets Management Limited and Another (CM/RPC/0434/2018) [2025] GHAHC 103 (22 May 2025)

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF JUDICATURE IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE (COMMERCIAL DIVISION 6) HELD IN ACCRA ON THURSDAY THE 22ND DAY OF MAY, 2025 BEFORE HER LADYSHIP JUSTICE SEDINA AGBEMAVA SUITNO.: CM/RPC/0434/2018 NANA AMANINGNYANTEH … PLAINTIFF VRS. BROOKS ASSETSMANAGEMENT LIMITED& ANOR. … DEFENDANTS RULING What appeared as a routine application for an amendment of an Entry of Judgment was fiercely resisted by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) acting as Amicus Curiae. The Plaintiff Applicant onthe 18th February, 2025 filed a Motion on Notice to Amend anEntryofJudgment dated 12thAugust, 2018. In the Affidavit in support of the Motion, the Plaintiff deposed that upon obtaining Judgment against the Defendants, 1st Defendant collapsed and was taken over by PriceWaterHouse Coopersand theSecurities and Exchange Commission. Page1of5SuitNo.CM/RPC/0434/18NanaAmaningNyantehVrs.BrooksAssetsManagementLimited& Anor. In further depositions, the Plaintiff alleged that the two institutions had refused to pay what was due him and the debt had accumulated, the reason for his prayer to amend the EntryofJudgment toreflect itstruestate. The Securities and Exchange Commission applied to be allowed to act as Amicus Curiae as the Regulatorofthe securities Industry. It submitted that as a result of its special standing, it was privy to exclusive information and documents which were not available to the Court, to enable the Courtmake aninformed determination. The application was allowed by the Court and the Commission argued the applicationas anAmicus Curiae. The Amicus Curiae denied that it had taken over the 1st Defendant Company. It had appointed PriceWater House Coopers to secure the offices of the 1st Defendant, pending the appointment of a liquidator. When the Registrar of Companies as the Official Liquidator obtained a winding up Order, it published a Notice to all Creditorsto lodge their claims orproof ofdebt toreceive payments. There were however delays in obtaining the Liquidation orders and on Humanitarian grounds, and on an appeal from the SEC to consider a bailout program for some suffering investors, the Government at the time decided to offer creditorsapartialbailout ofFifty Thousand Ghana Cedis (GH¢50,000.00). All who opted for the program were required to surrender their claims on the revokedFund ManagementLicenseesto Government under thebailout Agreement. Page2of5SuitNo.CM/RPC/0434/18NanaAmaningNyantehVrs.BrooksAssetsManagementLimited& Anor. The investors were required to assign all claims to a fund known as the AM Fund PLC whichwas going to paythe validated amount in Two (2)tiers. The first tier was forthe Fifty Thousand Ghana Cedis (GH¢50,000.00) paymentwith the second tier to be redeemed betweenOne (1) to Three (3) yearsfromthe date of1st payment. SEC claims that the Plaintiff submitted his claim, being the Judgment he obtained with ID BAM 100007 and he has accepted the bailout Agreement, out of which up to 20% hasbeen paid. SEC contends that having accepted and subscribed to the Agreement, Plaintiff no longerhasaninterest in the said Judgment, having assigned it to the AMFund. The Commission urged on the Court not to allow the application as the Plaintiff’s remedylay inarbitrationunder thebailout agreementand notinaCourtaction. The Commission is of the further view that the Court lacks jurisdiction to deal with thepresent application. At the time of filing the Entry of Judgment, the Applicant deposed that he had been paid a sum of One Million, Six Hundred and Seven Thousand, Four Hundred and Forty-EightGhana Cedis, Sixty-Eight (GH¢1,607,448.68). He did not deny that he had assigned his interest in the Judgment to the fund, howeverhe contended that evenif he had assigned his interest in the fund, it did not preclude him from asking for interest on the amount payable as ordered by the Court. Page3of5SuitNo.CM/RPC/0434/18NanaAmaningNyantehVrs.BrooksAssetsManagementLimited& Anor. I am in Agreement with the Counsel for the Commission, acting as Amicus Curiae thatthe Plaintiff hasno more interestin the Judgment it has assigned tothe Fund. This is because by completely assigning his rights to the Fund, the Fund or the Liquidator now steps into the shoes of the Plaintiff as it has acquired the rights to the Judgment and therefore it is the Fund which now has responsibility to deal with the claim ortheDefendants, now represented by theLiquidator, and notthe Plaintiff. The Plaintiff Applicant thereforelacks thecapacity tobring this applicationto amend the entryofJudgment. In addition to this, the 1st Defendant is undergoing insolvency proceedings. Under the Corporate Insolvency and Restructuring Act, 2020 Act 1015 proceedings against the Company undergoing winding up proceedings are halted or stayed and thePlaintiff cannot bring this applicationtoamend theEntryofJudgment. The application is thereforerefused and dismissed. (SGD) SEDINA AGBEMAVA J. JUSTICEOF THE HIGH COURT COUNSEL 1. G. H. QUISTFORTHE PLAINTIFF/APPLICANTPRESENT Page4of5SuitNo.CM/RPC/0434/18NanaAmaningNyantehVrs.BrooksAssetsManagementLimited& Anor. 2. EMMA MARFO WITH MAAME ABENA ADABIE ASABRE HOLDING BRIEF FOR NII OMAN BADOO FOR SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSIONAS AMICUSCURIAE PRESENT STATEDLAW CORPORATE INSOLVENCY ANDRESTRUCTURING ACT, 2020ACT1015. Page5of5SuitNo.CM/RPC/0434/18NanaAmaningNyantehVrs.BrooksAssetsManagementLimited& Anor.