The legal dispute over the No. 1 Oxford Street Hotel in Accra is heading to the Court of Appeal after Receiver/Manager Nii Amanor Dodoo and Cola Holdings Ltd challenged a High Court order directing them to return possession of the property to Kensington Residential Partners 1 Ltd.
The appeal follows a ruling by the High Court’s Commercial Division 2, sitting as a vacation court on Friday, August 21, 2026, which set aside the Receiver’s possession of the hotel and ordered that the property be re-delivered to Kensington Residential Partners 1 Ltd, associated with businessman Nana Kwame Bediako, also known as Cheddar or Freedom Jacob Caesar.
The Receiver has simultaneously applied for a stay of execution, asking the High Court to suspend enforcement of the order until the appeal is determined.
Receiver raises jurisdiction concerns
A major issue raised in the appeal is whether the vacation court that heard the application had jurisdiction to determine the matter.
According to an affidavit filed in support of the stay application, the substantive case was pending before Commercial Court 6, while the Judicial Service’s published vacation arrangements indicated that cases from that court were to be assigned to the vacation judge sitting in Commercial Court 8.
The Receiver claims that his lawyers initially went to Commercial Court 8 to have the matter placed on the docket but were informed that the docket was unavailable there.
The case was subsequently found at Commercial Court 2, prompting the Receiver to question how it came to be before that court.
He argues that the judge therefore lacked the authority to hear and determine the application.
“Not having a warrant in respect of this suit, His Lordship had no jurisdiction in connection with it,” the affidavit stated.
Borrowers and Lenders Act at centre of appeal
The Receiver is also challenging the High Court’s interpretation of provisions of the Borrowers and Lenders Act, 2020 (Act 1052).
He argues that the court’s decision was inconsistent with statutory provisions governing the enforcement of registered security interests when a borrower is in default.
The Receiver maintains that the ruling effectively interferes with the exercise of rights available to a lender under the law.
He has therefore asked the Court of Appeal to overturn the High Court’s decision, describing it as containing what his lawyers consider to be significant errors of law.
Dispute over police assistance warrant
Another issue concerns the interpretation of a warrant for police assistance issued under Section 64 of Act 1052.
The appellants contend that the High Court wrongly treated the police assistance warrant as though it were itself a warrant authorising the Receiver to take possession of the hotel.
They are also challenging the ruling on constitutional grounds, including an alleged inconsistency with Article 296 of the 1992 Constitution, which regulates the exercise of discretionary powers.
The Notice of Appeal states that the appellants are dissatisfied with the “whole decision” and alleges, among other matters, “patent errors of law.”
Stay application pending
In seeking a stay of execution, the Receiver argues that the appeal has a strong likelihood of success and that enforcing the High Court’s orders before the appeal is determined could have serious consequences.
He has described the ruling as unreasonable and irrational and urged the court to preserve the existing position until the appellate process is completed.
The Receiver has also indicated that his lawyers may take further steps after receiving the full ruling, including asking the High Court to address what they consider to be an error in the hearing of the case by the vacation judge.
The High Court is expected to hear the application for stay of execution on October 16, 2026.
The latest development means the ownership and possession dispute over the No. 1 Oxford Street Hotel remains before the courts, with the Court of Appeal now set to consider the Receiver’s challenge to the August 21 ruling
