The Supreme Court has temporarily halted the enforcement of the Court of Appeal’s decision that restored the operating licence of GN Savings and Loans Company Limited, pending the determination of an appeal filed by the Bank of Ghana.
The ruling means that although GN Savings won at the Court of Appeal, it cannot, for now, take legal steps to enforce that judgment. The company must await the outcome of the Bank of Ghana’s appeal before it can compel compliance with the orders restoring its licence and returning control of its assets and operations.
The Supreme Court’s order does not set aside the judgment of the Court of Appeal or determine that the appellate court was wrong. Rather, it suspends the enforcement of that judgment until the substantive appeal is heard and finally determined.
Background
On May 21, 2026, the Court of Appeal unanimously restored the licence of GN Savings and Loans Company Limited after overturning an earlier decision of the High Court that had upheld the Bank of Ghana’s revocation of the company’s licence.
A three-member panel of the Court of Appeal held that the decision by the central bank to revoke the licence during the financial sector clean-up exercise was unfair and unreasonable. The court consequently ordered the restoration of the licence and directed the receiver to hand over possession, management and control of the company’s assets and operations to its shareholders.
The Bank of Ghana, dissatisfied with the decision, appealed to the Supreme Court and applied for a stay of execution pending the determination of the appeal. The application has now been granted.
GN Savings, owned by Dr. Papa Kwesi Nduom, has consistently maintained that the revocation of its licence was unlawful, unreasonable and malicious. The dispute traces its origins to 2019, when the Bank of Ghana revoked the licences of several financial institutions as part of measures to restructure and sanitise Ghana’s financial sector.
The Law on Stay of Execution
A stay of execution suspends the processes available to a successful party to enforce a judgment pending the determination of an appeal.
In Republic v Court of Appeal; Ex parte Sidi, the Supreme Court explained that a stay of execution involves the suspension of any process or procedure that would ordinarily follow a judgment for the purpose of giving effect to it. Where a party applies for a stay pending appeal, the request is essentially for the court to suspend enforcement steps until the appeal has been finally determined.
Under Order 51 Rule 9 of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2004 (C.I. 47), an appeal does not automatically operate as a stay of execution. The mere filing of an appeal therefore does not prevent a successful litigant from enjoying the benefit of a judgment already obtained.
Similarly, an application for a stay of execution does not, by itself, prevent the judgment creditor from taking steps to enforce the judgment. It is only where the court, in the exercise of its discretion, grants the application that execution is suspended.
The power to grant a stay of execution is discretionary and must be exercised judicially. The court considers the circumstances of each case, including the interests of both parties and whether justice requires that enforcement should be postponed pending the appeal.
In Joseph v Jebeile, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the discretionary nature of this jurisdiction. The Court observed that while a successful party is ordinarily entitled to enjoy the fruits of a judgment, consideration must also be given to the position of a party who may ultimately succeed on appeal after having surrendered legal rights that may not easily be restored.
The courts have consistently held that a stay of execution should generally be granted only in exceptional circumstances. Such circumstances may include situations where immediate execution would destroy the subject matter of the dispute, deprive the appellant of the practical benefit of pursuing the appeal, or render the eventual decision of the appellate court nugatory.
However, the mere fact that an applicant may suffer financial difficulty or inconvenience is generally insufficient, on its own, to justify the grant of a stay.
A Case Still Awaiting its Final Chapter
The substantive appeal before the Supreme Court will determine whether the Court of Appeal was correct in ordering the restoration of GN Savings’ licence and whether the Bank of Ghana acted lawfully in revoking the licence in the first place.
Until that determination is made, the Court of Appeal’s judgment remains unimplemented. The case is expected to attract significant attention from financial sector stakeholders, legal practitioners and the wider public, given its implications for regulatory authority, administrative fairness and the continuing legal consequences of Ghana’s financial sector clean-up.
