Kwame Pianim for Fast Track Court

Kwame Pianim, a renowned economist and Chief Executive of New World Investments Limited, will appear before the Fast-Track court in Accra today, in connection with ?3 billion he allegedly received from an investor for the acquisition of assets for a banking project last year.

According to a writ of summons issued last month, the Plaintiff, Kumi & Co Limited, is seeking a declaration that the following assets belong to the Plaintiff: BHC Head Office Complex site (Round House) Ridge, Accra, BHC Branch-No. 38 John Sarbah Road, Takoradi., two residential buildings (Nos.

SD 3 and SL 14, Effiakuma Estates) and ?2 billion worth of vans (Nos. GV 424 E and GV 444 E).

The Plaintiff also intends to recover all the properties mentioned above from Mr. Pianim as well accounts of monies had and received from the plaintiff for the purchase of the properties mentioned.

Plaintiff is also seeking a "perpetual injunction against the Defendant, its agents, assigns and or any persons or parties purporting to act for him on behalf of Defendant or on its own behalf from dealing in any way with the property" and "cost".

In a three-page statement of claim, the plaintiff explained that last year it sought advice on the setting up of a Savings and Loans Company from Pianim.

Plaintiff claimed that Pianim rather advised that it would be more efficient to acquire a full banking license, instead of a limited license for a Savings and Loans operation.

The plaintiff further claimed that while discussion and correspondence were ongoing between him and defendant with regard to potential partners and share structure of an entity to utilize the proposed banking license, the defendant assured him that he could fast-track the acquisition of a banking license, provided the plaintiff could immediately acquire certain assets of the Bank for Housing and Construction (BHC), which was in liquidation.

By April 25, 2000 and July 20, 2000, the plaintiff claimed, a total of ?3.518 billion representing the conversion of $618, 000, was paid to Pianim to purchase the property.

The Plaintiff noted that it requested Defendant to use its name, (New World Investments Ltd) instead of plaintiff's to cover the acquisition of property to avoid 'undue' publicity, but Defendant refused with the reason that as a consultant it could only facilitate, but not be substantively involved.

The Plaintiff said that on realizing a lack of commitment from several potential partners proposed by the Defendant, it decided not to go ahead with the intended project, but rather chose to pursue the establishment of the Savings & Loans Company as initially planned.

The Plaintiff further observed that at that stage potential partners were yet to be agreed on, adding that to its knowledge no funds or other property had been contributed towards the formation of the proposed bank by any of the proposed shareholders under discussion and no meetings had been convened with any others except the plaintiff and the defendant.

Kumi & Co. Limited (Plaintiffs) observed in their claim that a written promise of the Defendant to refund the ?3.518 billion by October, 17, 2000 has not been honored. "Defendant promised to hand over the property but has refused, neglected or failed to do so," the Plaintiff added.

According to the Plaintiff, the Defendant's failure has led to its inability to pursue the Savings and Loans project. But in a Statement of Defence filed this month, the Defendant denied that the plaintiff sought its advice on setting up a Savings and Loans Company and stated that it rather sought its advice on setting up of a cocoa processing plant.

The Defendant further contended that the plaintiff had begun its own private arrangements on the application of a Savings and Loans License with the Bank of Ghana before they met.

According to the Defendant, it was the unionized senior and junior staff members of the Bank for Housing and Construction who requested it help them put together a management team to re-launch the bank as a worker-management buy-out venture, which was accordingly done.

The defendant continued that after the liquidation of the former BHC, they were advised to buy assets of the said bank with the understanding that the banking license would be renewed to enable the workers re-launch the bank.

The Defendant further averred that discussions and negotiations for selected assets of the said bank were carried out by the unionized liquidators before the plaintiff entered the scene. "Save that Defendant outlined a shareholding structure for the project to which the Plaintiff agreed and advanced monies as one of the shareholders in the said project named as Unique Access Banking Project"

The Defendant denied that the plaintiff asked him to use its name, New World Limited, to cover the acquisition of the property, but admitted that all the items listed by the plaintiff were purchased.

The Defendant also said the decision by the plaintiff to quit stemmed from its refusal to hand over the said assets purchased by all the shareholders to it.

It also intimated that contrary to the plaintiff's claim that the partners of the project had not yet been agreed on, "Partners of the Unique Banking project had been agreed upon including the shareholding structure with Plaintiff's approval."

It was further observed by the defendant that meetings between the plaintiff and other shareholders and partners could not be arranged because of the plaintiff's desire to avoid publicity.

Defendant admitted in his Statement of Defence that it had promised to refund the money, but contended that the promise to refund was predicated on getting another investor to take the place of the plaintiff.

The claim by the plaintiff that the defendant had promised to hand over the property was denied by the defendant who stated that as consultants for the said project they could not purport to hand over property that belonged to others.

The defendant finally maintained that the plaintiff is not entitled to any of the claims.