By Ernest Addo
State-owned GIHOC Distilleries Company Limited has hauled three former senior managers, a former company lawyer, and a supplier to court, accusing them of conspiring to defraud the company to the tune of over GH¢18 million, through inflated invoices, misrepresentations, and a court judgment based on misrepresentation from the conspirators.
In a suit filed on November 5, 2025, and signed by lawyer Emmanuel Kofi Darko for GIHOC, the state’s alcohol distilleries company alleged that its former Managing Director, Maxwell Kofl Jumah (2nd Defendant), two former Financial Controllers- Richmond Sam Quarm, and Appiah Mensah Twene (3rd and 4th Defendants respectively), its former company lawyer, Akvwasi Owusu Fordjour Esq. and businessman Bismark Korankye Kwabi Fosu, trading as KKB Fosu Enterprise (1st Defendant), secretly colluded to saddle the company with a fictitious debt for alcohol supplied between 2017 and 2023.
GIHOC is in court insisting that a judgment procured by KKB Fosu Enterprise, for the state distillery to cough up over GH¢18 million was secured through deceit, suppression of material information, and fabricated facts.
The company says it only uncovered the alleged scheme in October 2025 during a reconciliation of its financial and payment records, prompting it to act swiftly.
GIHOC is therefore invokes the principle that “fraud unravels everything” and argues that no person should retain the benefit of a judgment obtained by fraud.
The state-owned distillery is asking the High Court to: declare that the defendants conspired to defraud the company, declare the February 8, 2025 judgment void because it was procured by fraud, set aside the judgment entirely, award costs, including lawyer’s fees, and grant any further orders the court deems just
According to GIHOC’s Statement of Claim, during the alcohol supply arrangement between 2017 and 2023, the figures purportedly representing the company’s indebtedness were deliberately inflated by the former financial heads in connivance with the supplier- KKB Fosu Enterprise.
The company contended that these inflated debts-pegged at GH¢17,062,609.00 with an additional GH¢1,333,236.48 in alleged interest, were false, engineered, and unjustifiable.
Worst still, GIHOC’s former lawyer, Akvwasi Owusu Fordjour Esq., who was supposed to do due diligence to ensure that the arrangement was just and fair to all parties admitted the inflated claims in court without justification, paving the way for the supplier to file a motion for judgment on admission.
The lawyer allegedly raised no objection and even told the presiding judge: “My Lord, we have no objection to it,” when the GH¢17,062,609.00 with an additional GH¢1,333,236.48 in alleged interest, were raised in court by KKB Fosu Enterprise.
Justice Emmanuel Lodoh subsequently entered judgment against GIHOC, granting the supplier two major reliefs totalling over GH¢18 million.
Read GIHOC Distilleries Company Limited’s Statement of Claim:
- The Plaintiff is a Limited Liability Company registered under the laws of Ghana owned by the State and is engaged in the business of brewing alcoholic beverages.
- The 1 Defendant is an individual who trades under the name and style of KKB Fosu Enterprise
- The 2rd Defendant is a former Managing Director of the Plaintiff Company.
- The 3rd Defendant is a former Financial Controller of the Plaintiff Company
- The 4th Defendant is a former Financial Controller of the Plaintiff Company.
- The 5th Defendant is a former lawyer of the Plaintiff Company who represented the Plaintiff in the suit entitled “BISMARK KORANKYE KWABI FOSU (Trading under the name and style K.K.B Fosu Enterprise) vrs GIHOC DISTILLERIES COMPANY LIMITED’ with Suit No.: CM/RPC/0573/2023.
- The Plaintiff avers that in or about 2017 it engaged the 1″ Defendant for the latter to supply alcohol to the former for use in the Plaintiff s business.
- The Plaintiff says that during the period of the business transactions with the 1 Defendant it acted through the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th Defendants as it received alcohol supply from the 1″ Defendant and made the corresponding payments for the supply.
- The plaintiff further says that at various points in time, the 3rd and 4th Defendants purported to convey the Plaintiff’s indebtedness to the 1* Defendant and in the process inflated the figures contrary to the actual figures without anyreasonable and/or justifiable excuse in connivance with the 1 Defendant.
- The Plaintiff avers that on or about 29th day of June 2023, by a Writ of Summons and Statement of Claim in Suit No. CM/RPC/0573/2023 the 1* Defendant herein,
(therein the Plaintiffs) claimed against the Plaintiff herein, therein the 1″ Defendant the following reliefs:
- a) An order for the recovery of Seventeen Million, Sixty-Two Thousand, Six Hundred and Nine Ghana Cedis (GH¢17, 062,609.00) being Defendant’s outstanding indebtedness to Plaintiff for the supply of ENA as at 14″h June, 2023; with interest on the said sum from January 2018 till date of final payment.
- b) An order for the recovery of One Million, Three Hundred and Thiry Three Thousand, Two Hundred and Thirty-Six Cedis and Forty-Eight Pesewas (GH¢1,333,236.48) accrued on the facility with Stanbic Bank due to Defendant’s failure, refusal, and neglect to honour the terms of the parties’ Agreement; with interest on the said sum from 27tlh July, 2022 till date of final payment.
General damages for breach of contract and loss of Plaintiffs investment.
- d) Cost including Solicitor’s fees.
11.The Plaintiff avers that in the suit referred to in paragraphs 6 and 9 supra, the Plaintiff therein (the 1″ Defendant herein) in paragraphs 8 and 9 of his Statement of Claim averred, inter alia, as follows:
“8. Plaintiff avers that as of the 14th day of June, 2023, Defendant’s total indebtedness to Plaintiff stood at Seventeen Million, Sixty-Two Thousand, Six Hundred and Nine Ghana Cedis (GHC 17, 062,609.00).
- Plaintiff avers that interest totalling One Million, Three Hundred and Thiry Three Thousand, Two Hundred and Thirty-Six Cedis and Forty-Eight Pesewas (GH¢1,333,236.48) accrued on the facility with Stanbic Bank due to Defendants’ failure, refusal, and neglect to honour the terms of the parties’ Agreements.”
- The Plaintiff further avers that on or about 27th July, 2023, the 5th Defendant, without reasonable and/or justifiable justification, filed Statement of Defence admitting to the averments referenced in paragraph 10 supra as follows:
“6. The defendant admits paragraphs 8, 9 and 10 of the Statement of Claim.”
13.The Plaintiff yet further says that pursuant to the deliberate erroneous admission by the 5th Defendant referred to in paragraph 12 supra, the 1″ Defendant (therein the
plaintiff) on or about the 30th day of November 2023, caused to be filed a motion for Judgement on Admission and same was not opposed by the 5th Defendant and further indicated in open Court as follows:
“My Lord, we have no objection to it…”
- The Plaintiff says that pursuant to the facts averred in paragraphs 11, 12 and 13 supra, the Honourable Court, Coram: his Lordship Justice Emmanuel Lodoh, entered Judgment on Admission in favour of the Plaintiff therein (1″ Defendant herein) as follows:
“Accordingly, judgement on admission is hereby entered in favour of the Plaintiff (the 1″ Defendant herein) against the Defendant (Plaintiff herein] per reliefs ‘a and b’ as disclosed in the statement of claim.”
- The Plaintiff contends that the said Judgment on Admission referred to in paragraph
14 supra was obtained by fraud perpetrated by the Defendants.
PARTICULARS OF FRAUD
- a) The 1″, 2nd and 5th Defendants deliberately misrepresented material facts to the Court knowing same to be false.
- b) The 1″, 2nd and 5th Defendants suppressed and/or concealed vital
information, including the actual indebtedness as of 29th June 2023, which, if disclosed, would have materially altered the Court’s decision.
) The 1, 2nd and 5th Defendants knowingly presented forged or fabricated facts to the Honourable Court in the pleadings and subsequent filed processes and proceedings.
- d) The 1st, 2nd and 5th Defendants acted and/or colluded together, with the intent to defraud, to mislead the Court.
- e) The 1, 2nd and 5th Defendants acted in concert with the intention to procure a judgment against the Plaintiff unjustly.
- The Plaintiff avers that the said fraudulent conduct of the Defendants was not discovered until October 2025 when the officers of the Plaintiff Company reconciled their financial and payment records, and that the Plaintiff acted promptly upon discovery.
- The Plaintiff contends that the said judgment on admission is void and ought to be set aside, as it was obtained through fraud and misrepresentation.
- The Plaintiff relies on the equitable principle that fraud unravels and/or vitiates everything, and that no person should be permitted to retain a benefit obtained by deceit or fraudulent means.
- The Plaintiff will contend that the Honourable Court has inherent jurisdiction to set aside a judgment obtained by fraud.
- Wherefore the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendants jointly and severally is for:
- a) A declaration that the Defendants connived, conspired and/or acted together to perpetuate fraud against the Plaintiff in the 1* Defendant’s alcohol supply transactions with the Plaintiff.
- b) A declaration that the judgment on admission entered on the 8h day of February, 2025 in Suit entitled “BISMARK KORANKYE KWABI FOSU (Trading under the name and style K.K.B Fosu Enterprise) Vrs. GIHOC DISTILLERIES COMPANY LIMITED” with Suit
No.: CM/RPC/0573/2023 was obtained by fraud.
) An order setting aside the said judgment on admission referred to in relief (b) above as null and void.
- d) Costs including litigation expenses and Lawyers’ fees; and
- e) Any other relief(s) that this Honourable Court deems meet, just and equitable.
DATED AT ACCRA THIS 5TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025.
