The Accra High Court has ordered First Atlantic Bank to pay more than GH¢8.43 million to a customer after finding that the bank unlawfully tendered the customer’s bonds into the government’s Domestic Debt Exchange Programme without consent.
The Commercial Division 6 of the High Court, presided over by Justice Sedina Agbamava, held that the bank acted negligently and breached its fiduciary duty by unilaterally submitting the bonds, resulting in financial loss to the customer. In addition to the principal amount of GH¢8,439,959.62, the court awarded GH¢2 million in exemplary damages and GH¢100,000 in litigation costs in favour of the plaintiffs.
The ruling was delivered on December 12, 2025, in the case of Vihama Energy Company Ltd and Another v. First Atlantic Bank [TLP-HC-2025-06], a judgment published in The Law Platform’s Case Report Library.
According to details of the case, the GH¢8.43 million represents the amount the second plaintiff, Sebastian Klenam Asem, would have earned on his bonds had they not been tendered into the debt exchange, which resulted in significantly reduced interest returns.
In rejecting the bank’s defence, the judge dismissed arguments that the Bank of Ghana compelled participation in the debt exchange or that failure to tender the bonds posed operational risks to the bank. Counsel for First Atlantic Bank, Augustine Kidisil, had advanced those claims.
In a pointed assessment of the evidence, the court found no basis for the bank’s assertions. At page 11 of the judgment, the court held that “the Defendant’s unilateral decision to tender the bonds without the consent of the owner was a fundamental breach of its mandate and fiduciary trust as no such discretion was warranted by the facility agreement or any other instrument.”
The dispute arose from a loan facility extended by First Atlantic Bank to Vihama Energy Company and Sebastian Asem, secured with Government of Ghana Bonds (GOG-26) and ESLA Bonds (ESLA-31) lodged with the bank as collateral. The court accepted the plaintiffs’ case that at no point did they authorise the tendering of the bonds into the Domestic Debt Exchange Programme.
Despite the absence of consent, the bank proceeded to submit the bonds, justifying its actions on claims of an alleged loan default and the risk that the bonds would lose value if not exchanged. However, the judge found no evidence to support these claims, notwithstanding the bank’s lengthy statement of defence.
The court further established that the plaintiffs had fully met their obligations under the loan agreement and that subsequent developments confirmed the bonds retained their value. Evidence from the bank’s own witness showed that the bonds were later restored to their original status, but during the period they were wrongfully lodged under the programme, the plaintiffs did not receive all the coupon payments due to them.
In awarding substantial damages, the court said the decision was intended to express firm disapproval of what it described as the bank’s egregious conduct and to underscore the duty of financial institutions to safeguard client investments entrusted to them.
Source :The Law Platform
