Nana Konadu, others in ‘fierce fight’ over £3.2m UK Bank divested shares

After 19 years of the divestiture of 75 percent of Government of Ghana (GoG) shares in State owned Enterprise, Former First Lady Nana Konadu Agyeman Rawlings and others are in a ‘fierce fight’ over the £3.2 million shares.

Mrs Rawlings and former National Insurance Commissioner, Mr. Samuel Appiah-Ampofo, have initiated legal action in the Commercial Division of the High Court of Justice, claiming to be the “sole shareholders” of 15% of the divested shares of GREL which officially stand in the name of a company named Newgen Investments Limited.

The plaintiffs are seeking among others reliefs, a declaration to the effect that the 1 st Defendant, Dr. Albert Owusu Barnafo, incidentally a Prosecution Witness in the GREL Divestiture Trial (from November 2001 to April 2005), “was only a Bare Trustee of the 500 shares held by him (Barnafo) in the 3 rd Defendant company (Newgen Investments Ltd.)”.

They are also seeking a declaration that “the shares held by the 1 st Defendant (Dr. Barnafo) have been validly transferred to the 2 nd Plaintiff (Mrs. Rawlings)”.

Further particulars in a “Statement of Claim” attached to the writ which was filed on October 4, 2013, the plaintiffs contended that “by agreement between the 1 st Defendant (Dr. Barnafo) and themselves (Appiah-Ampofo and Mrs. Rawlings), they appointed Dr. Barnafo as a bare trustee to hold on their behalf 500 shares of the company which represents 50% of the issued shares of the company”.

Mr. Appiah-Ampofo and Mrs. Rawlings emphasised that “in full acknowledgement of his position as a bare trustee of the shares at issue, by a document titled ‘Declaration of Trust’ executed by the 1 st Defendant on 3 rd August 1995, the 1 st Defendant agreed and confirmed that the consideration for the said 500 shares of the 3 rd Defendant Company had been provided by the plaintiffs and accordingly he held those shares as a bare trustee for the plaintiffs”.

They insisted that ever since the execution of the ‘Declaration of Trust’ on 3 rd August, 1995 relative to the shareholdings, Dr. Barnafo in his dealings with them (Mrs. Rawlings & Appiah-Ampofo), had “conducted himself as a bare trustee”.

“The Plaintiffs aver that having executed the said ‘Declaration of Trust’, the 1 st Defendant is estopped from denying that the plaintiffs had power and authority to transfer the said 500 shares held by him in trust to any nominee of their choice. Pursuant to the said authorization the 500 shares held by the 1 st Defendant as a bare trustee were all duly transferred to the 2 nd Plaintiff (Mrs. Rawlings) on 5 th July 2013”, asserted Mrs. Rawlings and Appiah-Ampofo.

However, in a sharp rebuttal of the claims articulated by the 1 st and 2 nd Plaintiffs in their October 4, 2013 Writ, Dr. Albert Owusu Barnafo, as 1 st Defendant, Dehands Services Ltd, as 2 nd Defendant and NEWGEN INVESTMENTS LTD, as 3 rd Defendant, filed a “Statement of Defence and Counter-Claim” dated October 29, 2013.

They vehemently denied that Mrs. Rawlings and Mr. Appiah-Ampofo are the sole shareholders of Newgen Investments Ltd, a limited liability company incorporated under the laws of Ghana on 28 th June 1995.

“The Defendants in further denial state that the Plaintiffs are not and have never been shareholders of the 3 rd Defendant Company and are not recognised by the 3 rd Defendant Company as its shareholders”, countered Dr. Barnafo and the other Defendants.

They categorically stated that NEWGEN INVESTMENTS LTD was founded by Dr. Barnafo and the late Edmund Arnong who were rather the sole shareholders and not Mrs. Rawlings and Appiah-Ampofo as claimed by the latter two persons in their ‘Statement of Claim’ dated October 4, 2013.

Dr. Barnafo further denied ever executing any agreement to hold 500 shares of NEWGEN INVESTMENTS LTD. as Bare Trustee in favour of Mrs. Rawlings and Appiah-Ampofo.

“The 1 st Defendant states categorically that he never executed any trust document in favour of the Plaintiffs, and if there exists any such document then it is averred that, the signature purported to be that of the 1 st Defendant was forged by the Plaintiffs themselves with no involvement whatsoever from the 1 st Defendant”, emphasized the three (3) Defendants.


This article has 0 comment, leave your comment.

You must be logged in to post a comment Login