The Supreme Court has upheld the Bank of Ghana's (BoG) decision to revoke the operating license of Unicredit Ghana Limited.

In a unanimous ruling, the Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeal's decision and affirmed the High Court's ruling, which had found that the BoG acted correctly in revoking the license under the relevant legal provisions.

On August 16, 2019, the BoG declared Unicredit Ghana Limited insolvent and revoked its license under section 123 of the Banks and Specialized Deposit-Taking Institutions Act of 2016 (Act 930). This action was based on the company's insolvency.

Hoda Holdings Limited, the majority shareholder of Unicredit, sought judicial review of the BoG’s decision at the Human Rights Division of the High Court, requesting an injunction against the bank’s interference.

Justice Gifty Agyei Addo of the High Court upheld the legality of the BoG’s decision, finding it in accordance with section 123 of Act 930 and not arbitrary.

Hoda Holdings then appealed to the Court of Appeal, which overturned the High Court's decision. The appellate court, consisting of Justices Janapare A. Bartels-Kodwo, Merley Wood, and Gbiel Suurbaareh, ruled that the BoG had not followed the procedural requirements in section 16(3&4) of Act 930, which mandates a hearing before revoking a license.

Dissatisfied with this ruling, the BoG appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the Court of Appeal had misinterpreted the law.

The five-member panel of the Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice Gertrude Torkornoo and including Justices Mariama Owusu, Prof. Henrietta Mensa-Bonsu, Ernest Yao Gaewu, and Yaw Darko Asare, agreed with the High Court.

They confirmed that Unicredit was given written notice of its capital insufficiency and liquidity issues, along with an opportunity to respond, thus validating the BoG’s actions as compliant with legal standards.

“We are also satisfied that the revocation of UniCredit’s license was done in accordance with the stipulated law appearing on the face of the record, and therefore reversed the decision of the Court of Appeal while upholding that of the High Court.”