When Benjamin Boateng registered on MSport’s online betting platform in June 2022, he did not use his personal mobile money account. Instead, he used a corporate MTN Mobile Money Merchant number belonging to his employer, Gafat Consult Limited, an IT and mobile money vending company that had entrusted him with company funds for the purchase of gold.
By the time the matter came to light, GH¢364,847 of company money had been staked away on the betting platform. According to the High Court, the transactions should never have been permitted in the first place.
In a judgment delivered on 19 March 2026 in Gafat Consult Limited v. Mobile Sport (MSport) & Benjamin Boateng [TLP/HC/2026/13], Justice Ayitey Armah-Tetteh, sitting as an Additional High Court Judge in Court 12, Accra, ordered MSport to refund the full amount lost, pay interest from August 2022 until final payment, and bear costs of GH¢40,000.
The decision is already being viewed as one of the most significant judicial pronouncements on gaming regulation, digital finance compliance, and Know Your Customer (KYC) obligations in Ghana.
Background to the Dispute
Gafat Consult Limited had expanded into gold trading and had tasked one of its directors, Emmanuel Adeyemo, and employee Benjamin Boateng with purchasing gold in the Western and Ashanti Regions. Company funds for the transactions were channelled through Gafat’s MTN Mobile Money Merchant number, 0597394547.
READ ALSO
At a point during the assignment, Adeyemo was compelled to return to Accra urgently and left Boateng in charge of the operation. He subsequently transferred an additional GH¢200,000 to the merchant account to facilitate further gold purchases.
Unknown to the company, Boateng allegedly diverted the funds and registered the merchant number on MSport’s betting platform. Rather than purchasing gold, he used the company’s funds for online betting.
When Gafat could no longer reach him, colleagues later reported that Boateng admitted using the funds for gambling.
The company subsequently lodged a complaint with the Gaming Commission of Ghana before commencing legal action against both Boateng and MSport, claiming that approximately GH¢400,000 had been lost through the betting activities.
MSport denied liability. The company argued that it had complied with all applicable KYC procedures, that the betting account had been registered in Boateng’s personal name, and that deposits were processed through a third-party mobile money payment system outside its direct control.
The Central Legal Question
At the heart of the case was whether MSport had complied with the regulatory obligations imposed on betting operators in Ghana.
The court framed the key issue as whether MSport breached applicable gaming regulations by allowing Boateng to register and bet on its platform in his personal capacity while using Gafat’s corporate mobile money merchant number.
The case turned on the adequacy or inadequacy of MSport’s KYC verification system.
The Evidence That Shifted the Case
One of the most decisive moments in the proceedings came during the cross-examination of MSport’s own Operations Manager.
The witness admitted that MSport’s registration system was specifically designed to permit only personal mobile money numbers for registration and not corporate or merchant numbers.
Under questioning, the witness conceded:
“Is a Company’s number a personal number? A. No. Can a Company’s number be used to sign up on your platform? A. No.”
That admission greatly weakened MSport’s defence.
The court held that the testimony confirmed Gafat’s argument that a company merchant number should never have been accepted by the platform.
Justice Ayitey Armah-Tetteh also relied on MTN transaction records tendered in evidence, which showed that the disputed mobile money number belonged to Gafat Consult Ltd and not to Boateng personally.
The Court’s Interpretation of KYC Obligations
Perhaps the most important aspect of the judgment lies in the court’s broader interpretation of KYC and anti-money laundering obligations.
The court relied on section 35(2) of the Anti-Money Laundering Act, 2020 (Act 1044), which requires betting and gaming operators to verify the identities of persons involved in gaming transactions.
However, the court went further than a narrow identity-verification approach.
Justice Ayitey Armah-Tetteh held that proper KYC compliance requires betting operators not only to verify names and identification documents, but also to conduct sufficient checks to ensure that the funds being used are legitimate and that the person using them is authorised to do so.
According to the court, a proper verification process would have revealed that the number used for registration was a corporate merchant account rather than a personal mobile money number.
The failure of MSport’s system to detect that discrepancy, the court held, amounted to a failure of regulatory compliance.
The Gaming Commission’s Position
An important dimension of the case was the role played by the Gaming Commission of Ghana.
A letter from the Commission tendered in evidence suggested that MSport had complied with certain KYC requirements and that Gafat itself had granted Boateng access to the merchant SIM and company funds.
However, the same letter also stated that registration of a merchant SIM required the user to be either a director or secretary of the company.
The court therefore held that MSport ought to have gone further to verify whether Boateng occupied either of those positions before allowing the registration to proceed.
In effect, the judgment makes clear that partial compliance with KYC obligations is insufficient where obvious red flags exist.
A Strong Warning to Betting Operators
The ruling sends a significant warning to betting companies and digital finance platforms operating in Ghana.
The court emphasised that where a platform’s system is capable of distinguishing between personal and corporate numbers, the operator may be held liable if the system fails to prevent a prohibited registration.
This effectively imposes a higher duty of care on digital betting operators, particularly in relation to merchant wallets and corporate mobile money accounts.
The judgment also reflects a growing judicial expectation that digital platforms must proactively prevent misuse of their systems rather than merely respond after losses have already occurred.
The Court’s Final Orders
Although Gafat claimed that close to GH¢400,000 had been lost, the court held that the evidence established proven deposits of GH¢364,847.
Judgment was therefore entered against MSport, with the court ordering the company to:
- Refund GH¢364,847 to Gafat Consult Limited;
- Pay interest on the amount from August 2022 until final payment;
- Pay costs of GH¢40,000; and
- Accept a declaration that it had failed to comply with the applicable regulatory guidelines governing betting operations in Ghana.
Why the Decision Matters
For betting operators, the message from the court is very clear. By relying on section 3(1) of the Gaming Act, 2006 (Act 721) and section 35(2) of the Anti-Money Laundering Act, 2020 (Act 1044), the court affirmed that gaming companies carry a substantive obligation to verify not only the identity of users, but also the nature and ownership of the financial instruments used on their platforms.
A betting company cannot escape liability merely by arguing that transactions were processed through a third-party payment provider if its own registration system failed to detect obvious warning signs.
For corporate institutions, the judgment is equally instructive. Although the Gaming Commission noted that Gafat had entrusted Boateng with significant access to company funds and its merchant SIM without adequate safeguards, that fact did not absolve MSport of liability. Nonetheless, the decision underscores the importance of internal controls and corporate oversight over merchant accounts and financial access.
More broadly, the ruling highlights an emerging legal frontier in Ghana’s financial services sector. As mobile money merchant accounts become increasingly central to business operations, disputes over liability for misuse, whether caused by employee misconduct, platform negligence, or inadequate verification systems, are likely to become more frequent.
Justice Ayitey Armah-Tetteh’s judgment draws a clear line: where a regulated platform has both the legal obligation and the technical capability to detect an obvious irregularity, failure to act on that irregularity may attract liability.
Applied here to a GH¢364,847 betting loss, that principle could significantly reshape how betting operators approach compliance and how businesses manage access to their merchant accounts going forward.
