The Receiver of No.1 Oxford Street Hotel, Nii Amanor Dodoo, and Kola Holdings Ltd have filed a formal appeal against a ruling by the vacation court presided over by Justice John-Mark Alifo on August 21, 2026, which effectively halted the Receiver’s possession of the property and ordered the transfer of the hotel to Kensington Residential Partners 1 Ltd. This landmark appeal centers around a significant discrepancy in the court’s judgment, raising serious questions about the legality of the proceedings.
The appeal argues that the ruling was demonstrably erroneous, inconsistent with the Constitution and the Borrowers and Lenders Act, 2020 (Act 1052), and fails to adequately consider a binding decision of the Court of Appeal. Specifically, the Receiver contends the vacation court, operating as Commercial Court 2, lacked the authority to adjudicate matters related to the hotel’s ownership.
The appeal’s core argument centers on the jurisdictional issue. The affidavit in support of the application for a stay of execution reveals that a publication on the Judicial Service website indicated that cases involving Commercial Court 6 were to be handled by the vacation judge in Commercial Court 8. This discrepancy highlights a critical flaw in the court’s assessment of the Receiver’s jurisdiction.
The Receiver’s affidavit details the detailed reasoning behind their challenge. They contend that the vacation court’s decision to grant possession to Kensington Residential Partners 1 Ltd., without any demonstrable intent to repay the debt, constitutes an unjust and illogical application of the Borrowers and Lenders Act. The Receiver argues this ruling seeks to restore conduct that the Act treats as criminal, effectively reversing the original intent of the property’s initial transfer.
Furthermore, the Receiver asserts that the court’s decision disregards a binding decision from the Court of Appeal. The affidavit emphasizes the importance of this appeal and the prospect of success.
In a detailed explanation, the Receiver stated that counsel will, as a preliminary step, request that His Lordship correct the error in the hearing and ruling, when the warrant as a vacation judge did not include a suit in Commercial Court 6.
The application for stay of execution is scheduled to be heard on October 16, 2026, and is expected to be a significant point of contention in this ongoing legal battle.
According to the legal team, the Receiver’s position is that the court’s actions represent an unlawful interference with the property’s rightful owner, and that a stay of execution is necessary to ensure a fair and just resolution of the matter. The bankruptcy proceedings are likely to be substantially impacted by the outcome of this appeal.
The case represents a protracted legal challenge, with significant implications for the Receiver’s role and the handling of the property. The impact of this ruling will be felt across several stakeholders, including the creditors and potential buyers of the hotel.
Watch Related Video
Source: Graphic Online
