The legal battle surrounding the No. 1 Oxford Street Hotel has reached a critical juncture, with the Receiver managing the property on behalf of Cola Holdings Limited, Nii Amanor Doodo, filing a formal appeal challenging the High Court’s ruling that ordered the property’s return to Kensington Residential Partners 1 Limited. This action, initiated by the Receiver, follows a previous order by Justice John-Mark Alifo, sitting as a vacation judge in Commercial Court 2, which declared the Receiver’s possession of the hotel unlawful and ordered its re-delivery to Kensington. The Receiver’s appeal centers on a discrepancy in the court’s judgment, arguing that the ruling is inconsistent with the Constitution and the Borrowers and Lenders Act 2020, and that it fails to consider a binding Court of Appeal decision. The motion for stay of execution, filed by the Receiver, contends that the vacation court lacked jurisdiction over cases originating from Commercial Court 6, a crucial distinction that the court failed to acknowledge. Furthermore, the Receiver asserts that the ruling is unreasonable and undermines the principles of the Borrowers and Lenders Act, which treats conduct as criminal when it involves unpaid debts. In their affidavit, the Receiver states that the ruling effectively hands possession to a party demonstrating no intention of repaying the hotel’s debt, and risks restoring practices that the Borrowers and Lenders Act views as unlawful. The Receiver’s argument highlights a significant concern – the lack of a clear pathway for the hotel’s repayment and the potential for a reversal of a potentially successful legal challenge. The hearing on the appeal is scheduled for October 16, 2026, and the Receiver is seeking a stay of execution of the order, anticipating a strong chance of success in the appeal. The Receiver’s legal team has indicated they will also raise an error in the judge’s ruling regarding cases from Commercial Court 6, a point the court deemed irrelevant given its vacation-judge mandate. The case’s implications are considerable, as it directly affects the hotel’s future ownership and the financial obligations of the involved parties. The High Court’s ruling has triggered considerable debate within the legal community, with analysts suggesting this is a pivotal moment in the ongoing dispute regarding the hotel’s future.
Watch Related Video
Source: Adom Online
