…As Court hears contempt case In US$17 million gold transaction dispute soon
Three directors of JG Resources Limited, including the son of the immediate past Ghana’s High Commissioner to the United Kingdom and onetime Minister of Justice and Attorney-General in the John Kufuor administration, Papa Owusu-Ankomah, are facing the possibility of imprisonment in connection with the US$17 million transaction dispute.
Papa Yaw Owusu-Ankomah, along with his colleague directors Maame Akosua Asama Kuranchie and Kwaku Appiah Yeboah, is expected to appear before the High Court (Commercial Division) in Accra on 5 March 2026, following contempt proceedings brought against them and their company.
They had disobeyed directives from Justice Doris Awuah-Dabanka-Bekoe regarding the alleged forging of documents and the receipt of the substantial sum using the name of Sesi Edem Limited, a registered gold dealership.
The proceedings arise from Suit No. GJ-CM/OCC/0181/2026, in which Sesi-Edem Company Limited alleges that JG Resources Limited used its corporate name and the signature of its Managing Director without authorisation in connection with a Sale and Purchase Agreement with Tayvest-FZCO for the purchase of gold dore bars.
It is further alleged that the agreement bears a forged signature and stamp, which Sesi-Edem Company Limited reportedly discovered upon receiving information from a journalist, Kay Cudjoe. The company subsequently took legal action against JG Resources.
On 19 December 2025, the High Court granted an injunction and preservation order in favour of Sesi-Edem Company Limited.
According to filings, the orders directed JG Resources to freeze specified bank accounts, including one held with Access Bank, deposit funds related to the disputed transaction into court, and file a sworn affidavit disclosing all related assets. The order was reportedly served on 22 December 2025.
In support of the contempt proceedings, Sesi-Edem Company Limited filed an affidavit asserting that no funds were deposited into court, no disclosure affidavit was submitted, and no application was made to vary, discharge, or stay the order.
A registry search dated 7 January 2026 is cited as confirming the absence of these compliance steps. The applicant contends that the alleged non-compliance occurred while the order remained in force and amounts to wilful disobedience.
Contempt proceedings are designed to uphold the authority of the judiciary. If established, sanctions may include fines or imprisonment. The High Court is scheduled to hear the contempt matter in March 2026, where it will determine whether JG Resources Limited and its directors disregarded the court’s orders and whether committal is warranted.
Separate but related reports indicate that Tayvest-FZCO, a Turkish firm, has lodged a formal complaint with the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) of the Ghana Police Service regarding an alleged US$17 million gold transaction that has reportedly drawn accusations of fraud, document manipulation, and conflicting claims of responsibility.
The matter has prompted parallel investigations, including that of the Economic and Organized Crime Office (EOCO), and has attracted the attention of national security authorities due to its scale and complexity.
All claims and allegations remain before the multiple courts, including the Adenta Court, the High Rights Court and investigative authorities, and no final judgments have been issued.
As of yesterday, a gold dealership, Sesi Edem Limited, owned and led by Gabriel Tanko Kwamigah-Atokple, has applied for the imprisonment of JG Resources Ltd and three of its directors for contempt of court.
Company records sighted by The Herald show that JG Resources Ltd was incorporated on 7 April 2025. Within two months of its registration, it reportedly received the full US$17 million from Tayvest-FZCO for the supply of gold. Investigators are said to regard the timeline as suspicious, a factor that has triggered heightened scrutiny of the transaction.
The committal application, brought pursuant to Article 19(12) of the 1992 Constitution and Order 50 of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2004 (C.I. 47), is supported by an affidavit sworn by Marcus Bentil, Legal Director and Company Secretary of the Applicant.
Mr Bentil states that the Applicant commenced an action on 16 December 2025 by Writ of Summons and Statement of Claim against JG Resources Ltd, alleging that the company fraudulently used its name in a Sale and Purchase Agreement involving gold dore bars.
The agreement reportedly represented the Applicant as the seller, JG Resources Ltd as facilitator, and Tayvest-FZCO as buyer.
The Applicant subsequently filed a Motion Ex Parte for Interim Injunction and Preservation of Property, seeking orders, including the payment into court of funds allegedly derived from the disputed transaction, the freezing of JG Resources Ltd’s bank accounts, including an Access Bank account with IBAN No. 10006000005184 and an order directing the Respondents to file an affidavit disclosing all related funds and assets.
On 19 December 2025, the High Court granted all the reliefs sought in the ex parte motion after hearing counsel and considering the urgency of the matter. The orders included freezing the company’s bank accounts, depositing the disputed funds into court, and filing a full disclosure affidavit.
The affidavit states that the court order was served on the 1st Respondent on 22 December 2025 by a bailiff, thereby giving the Respondents full notice and knowledge of the order.
However, Mr Bentil avers that despite service of the order, JG Resources and its directors have wilfully failed to comply. An official search conducted at the court registry on 7 January 2026 allegedly confirmed that no payment had been made to the court, no affidavit of disclosure had been filed, and no application had been made to vary, discharge, or stay the order.
Although the interim injunction was expressed to remain in force for seven days from the date it was made, the Applicant contends that the Respondents’ failure to comply within that period constitutes a completed act of contempt for which they remain liable.
The affidavit further argues that the expiration of the seven-day period does not extinguish the alleged contempt, maintaining that even where an order is subsequently set aside, a party is not absolved from liability for disobeying it while it was in force.
Mr Bentil deposes that the purpose of the interim order was to prevent the dissipation or concealment of funds and to preserve the subject matter of the suit. He contends that the Respondents’ alleged disobedience undermines the authority of the court and frustrates the administration of justice.
The application is grounded on two principal claims: that the Respondents have wilfully disobeyed the High Court’s order, and that their conduct has lowered the authority of the court and brought the administration of justice into disrepute.
The affidavit further states that where a company is held in contempt, its directors and officers may be held personally liable. Accordingly, the three directors are being cited alongside the corporate entity. Sesi Edem Limited is, therefore, urging the court to commit the Respondents to prison for contempt, arguing that failure to do so would create the impression that lawful orders of the High Court can be ignored with impunity.
Report By: The Herald
