Lawyer faults EOCO for failure to investigate altered cheque from client
A legal practitioner yesterday took on the Economic and Organised Crime Office (EOCO) for failing to investigate the alteration of a $391,250 cash cheque issued by his client.
According to Mr Godfred Yeboah Dame, the failure of EOCO to investigate the matter is part of a collusion between an interested party, Kayode Alade, and EOCO to deprive his client, Auxesia Energy Limited, of its money.
Cross-examining an investigator from EOCO in the tussle over ownership of the $391,250, Mr Dame sought to put it to the investigator that EOCO had been lax in investigating how the cheque was altered to include the name “Kayode”.
Denying Mr Dame’s accusation, the investigator, Mr Patrick Kofi Awoonor, told the Financial Division of the Fast Track High Court that the alteration of the cheque by Kayode, the representative of the second defendant in the case, was under investigation.
However, the witness made a U-turn upon further questions to say, “We are not investigating Kayode.”
He denied Mr Dame’s claim that EOCO was only interested in depriving Auxesia Energy of its earnings, and further stated that Auxesia Energy had nothing to do with the alteration of the cheque.
The altered cheque was tendered in evidence as an exhibit without objection from any of the lawyers in the case.
Background to case
Kayode is an interested party representing Soleushing in the case in which the UT Bank released $391,250 from Auxesia Energy’s account into the coffers of the Judicial Service to avoid being held for contempt.
The contenders to the amount are Auxesia Energy, Soleushing Ghana and Soleushing UK.
The Financial Division of the Fast Track High Court, presided over by Mr Justice John Ajet-Nasam, is currently gathering evidence from the parties to enable the court to determine the actual owner of the amount in dispute.
Core business of Auxesia Energy
Asked if he knew the core business of Auxesia Energy, the investigator answered in the affirmative and said the company was into the purchase and sale of petroleum products.
Mr Awoonor told the court that Auxesia Energy and Earth Petroleum entered into an agreement under which Earth Petroleum was to deliver low pour fuel oil (LPFO) to Auxesia Energy.
The agreement between the two companies was tendered in evidence through the witness who said Auxesia Energy had no hand in the arrangement for the vessel to transport the LPFO.
No contract between Auxesia and Soleushing
Mr Awoonor said he was not aware of any contractual arrangement between Auxesia Energy and Soleushing Ghana.
He also told the court that there was no contract between Auxesia Energy and Soleushing UK.
It also came to light during the hearing that Auxesia Energy had issued the $391,250 cheque in favour of Earth Petroleum, resulting in UT Bank raising a bank guarantee in Earth Petroleum’s favour.
The investigator said he was aware of the issuance of the bank guarantee but was not aware that Earth Petroleum wrote to the bank requesting that the cheque should not be honoured.
Soleushing not entitled to payment
Mr Awoonor told the court that Soleushing Ghana and Soleushing UK were not entitled to the $391,250.
But he later informed the court during cross-examination by Counsel for Soleushing Ghana, Mr James Appiah Duker, that determining the rightful owner of the cheque was not part of his mandate.
Hearing continues on June 16, 2014.
