Court throws out law firm's $1.24m agent fee claim for new BoG headquarters land

The Court of Appeal has dismissed a claim of more than US$1.2 million in commission by private law firm KAA Law against the Bank of Ghana (BoG) over the land on which the central bank’s new headquarters has been built.

KAA Law accused the BoG of going behind its back to acquire the land after the firm had assisted the bank in searching for a suitable property for its new headquarters.

The law firm initially sued the BoG at the High Court, demanding about US$1.2 million in commission. The suit was dismissed after the court found that KAA Law could not establish a written engagement, the agreed scope of work or the agreed fee.

The High Court also awarded GH¢50,000 in costs against the law firm.

According to a report by legal practitioner Professor Kwaku Asare, popularly known as Kwaku Azar, the Court of Appeal has now upheld the substance of the High Court’s decision but found that the lower court had applied the wrong legal process in determining the case.

“The Court of Appeal held that the High Court had followed the wrong legal route.

“KAA Law was not providing legal services in this transaction. It was providing property or real-estate services. Therefore, the rules governing lawyers’ engagement letters and the recovery of legal fees did not apply. That was an important victory for KAA Law, but it did not win the case,” he wrote in a Facebook post on September 8, 2026.

Ghana can no longer ignore crypto - BoG Governor

The Court of Appeal also found that documents presented in the case indicated that KAA Law was acting for the party that was selling the land.

It noted that there was nothing inherently wrong with the law firm representing both the BoG and the seller, but such dual representation required the knowledge and consent of all parties.

“KAA Law produced no evidence that both parties knew about and consented to the dual representation. The Court therefore held that KAA Law had not established that it was BoG’s agent for the Ridge transaction,” Prof Asare wrote.

He said the court also considered whether KAA Law could recover the reasonable value of the services it had provided in the absence of an enforceable contract.

“Could KAA Law nevertheless recover the reasonable value of the services it had rendered, even without an enforceable contract? Again, the Court said no. The services concerning the Ridge land appeared to have been performed for KAA Law’s own client, not for BoG. BoG could not be made to pay for services rendered to someone else,” he added.

However, the Court of Appeal reduced the GH¢50,000 costs awarded by the High Court to GH¢10,000.

“The appeal therefore failed, except on costs. The Court of Appeal reduced the costs from GH¢50,000 to GH¢10,000 because the High Court had not explained how it arrived at the higher amount,” Professor Asare said.

Professor Asare’s comments were contained in a post shared on Facebook on September 8, 2026.

BAI/MA

IGP Yohuno Reveals Major Police Breakthroughs as Key Suspects, Weapons Are Recovered