The Commercial Division of the Accra High Court has ruled against First Atlantic Bank in a case arising from the bank’s decision to tender a customer’s government bonds into Ghana’s Domestic Debt Exchange Programme without authorisation.
In a judgment delivered on December 12, 2025, the court ordered the bank to pay a total of GH¢8,439,959.62 to a customer for financial loss suffered as a result of the unilateral action. The court also awarded exemplary damages of GH¢2 million and litigation costs of GH¢100,000 in favour of the plaintiffs.
The case, brought by Vihama Energy Company Limited and Sebastian Klenam Asem against First Atlantic Bank, was heard by Justice Sedina Agbamava at Commercial Division 6 of the High Court in Accra.
The amount of GH¢8.43 million represents the sum the second plaintiff would have earned from his bonds if they had not been tendered into the Domestic Debt Exchange Programme, which significantly reduced the interest payable on the instruments.
The plaintiffs were represented by lawyers from Gratia Law Consult, led by Alfred Paapa Darkwah.
According to the court’s findings, the plaintiffs had obtained a loan facility from First Atlantic Bank, secured with Government of Ghana bonds and ESLA bonds lodged with the bank as collateral. Evidence before the court showed that at no point did the plaintiffs sign any document or give consent authorising the bank to submit the bonds into the government’s debt exchange programme.
Despite this, the bank tendered the bonds into the programme, arguing that it did so to protect its interests. The bank claimed that the plaintiffs had defaulted on the loan facility and that failure to tender the bonds posed a risk to the bank, particularly in light of what it described as pressure from the Bank of Ghana.
Justice Agbamava rejected these arguments. In her judgment, the court held that the bank failed to provide evidence to support claims of default or regulatory coercion. The court found that the plaintiffs had met their obligations under the loan agreement and that the bonds did not lose their value as claimed by the bank.
The court stated that the bank’s decision to tender the bonds without the owner’s consent amounted to a fundamental breach of mandate and fiduciary trust. The judgment noted that neither the facility agreement nor any other instrument granted the bank discretion to take such action on behalf of the customer.
Evidence led by the bank’s own witness showed that after the lawsuit was filed, the bonds were eventually restored to their original status. However, during the period in which the bonds were wrongfully enrolled in the debt exchange programme, the plaintiffs did not receive the full coupon payments they were entitled to.
In awarding exemplary damages, the court said the conduct of the bank warranted strong judicial disapproval. The damages, the court explained, were intended to mark the seriousness of the breach and deter similar conduct by financial institutions entrusted with customers’ investments.
First Atlantic Bank has not publicly commented on the judgment. The decision adds to growing judicial scrutiny of how banks handled customer assets during the implementation of the Domestic Debt Exchange Programme.