Counsel for the Ghanaian retiree who has dragged the central bank and its immediate past Governor, Dr Ernest Addison, to court over the depreciation of the cedi has argued that the civil action is one on gross negligence hence his client’s right to seek redress in court.
“It is very important that the Bank of Ghana gets to appreciate that their actions or inaction have consequences and that people who have suffered from their actions or inaction must have a recourse against them,” counsel said after lawyers for the defendants moved a motion praying the court to strike out the suit for not disclosing any reasonable cause of action.
Counsel for the retiree, John E. Baiden, was of the view that the application to strike out his client’s case was misplaced as same does not specify any part of the plaintiff’s pleadings that must be struck out contrary to the rules of court.
He further argued that since the defendants’ motion to strike out the suit was filed under Order 11 rule 18 of Constitutional Instrument (C.I.) 47, they ought to have entered conditional appearance and ought to have brought the application within 14 days upon entering conditional appearance.
It states that the court may at any stage of the proceedings order any pleading or anything in any pleading to be struck out on the grounds that it discloses no reasonable cause of action or defence; or it is scandalous, frivolous or vexatious; or it may prejudice, embarrass or delay the fair trial of the action; or it is otherwise an abuse of the process of the court.
He further argued that the defendants ought to have entered appearance before bringing the application to strike out the suit.
Rebuttal
But in a sharp rebuttal, counsel for the defendant, Savior Kudze, said the BoG, which is the regulator of the financial sector, owed the plaintiff no duty of care because there was no contractual relationship between the two of them.
If the regulator should do that, what it would mean is that the regulator will be intermeddling with the contractual relationships between the parties.
On the point of not being specific on the portions of the pleadings his clients seek to strike out, he said same was irrelevant because the basis for the application was that the action itself was not justiciable.
Relying on case laws, counsel said matters of exchange rate fluctuation which may affect the investment of individuals were not matters that the court had competence to handle and for that matter such matters were not justiciable.
“It is for this reason that the present action does not disclose any reasonable cause of action against the defendants.
And also at the same time the action amounts to abuse of the process of court,” he added at the court presided over by Justice Audrey Kocuvie-Tay.
The case has been adjourned to July 22, 2025.
Background
In a writ filed at the Accra High Court, the plaintiff, Balbir Violet Allan, a resident of Adabraka, who has sued the BoG and Dr Addison, contends that the Governor assumed office in February 2017 at a time when the cedi-dollar exchange rate was GH¢ 4.26 to $ 1 but left office in February 2025 with a surged rate of GH¢15.49 to $1, representing a depreciation of approximately 264 per cent.
The plaintiff claims that the significant decline in the value of the cedi has caused substantial losses in the value and purchasing power of her investments in government treasuries, particularly ESLA Bonds.
She argues that while the law mandated the Bank of Ghana, through its Governor, to provide the state with a stable currency, the second defendant allegedly chose to allow the value of the cedi to be determined solely by market forces, including demand and supply on the foreign exchange (forex) markets, leading to its instability and volatility.
It is the case of the plaintiff that the immediate past Governor allegedly failed to develop or implement any credible plan consistent with the law to stabilise the currency.
Reliefs
Ms Balbir said unless an order to recover her losses was granted by the court, she would have no recourse for recovery or restitution of the lost value of investment capital.
She is, therefore, asking the court to lift the corporate veil shielding the Bank of Ghana and to hold both the bank and the former Governor jointly and severally liable for her investment losses.
Among other reliefs, the plaintiff is seeking a declaration that the second defendant had been grossly negligent, allegedly in the management of the Ghana Cedi through the first defendant (BoG).
Also, a declaration that the exchange rate losses she had suffered were enforceable against both defendants, jointly and severally.
Writer’s mail: justice.agbenorsi@graphic.com.gh
