Ecobank must pay monthly compound interest to Daniel Ofori-Supreme Court
In a ruling delivered on 6 May 2026, the court held that Mr Ofori, the plaintiff and judgment creditor, is entitled to monthly compounded interest at 30 percent on his principal investment from 2 June 2008 to 25 July 2018, the date of judgment.
The Supreme Court has ruled that Ecobank Ghana Limited must calculate compound interest owed to Daniel Ofori on a monthly basis, not annually, in a long-running judgment debt dispute involving an investment sum of GH¢6,162,240.
In a ruling delivered on 6 May 2026, the court held that Mr Ofori, the plaintiff and judgment creditor, is entitled to monthly compounded interest at 30 percent on his principal investment from 2 June 2008 to 25 July 2018, the date of judgment. Thereafter, the judgment debt is to attract simple interest at 13.34 percent until final payment.
The decision resolves a central dispute between Mr Ofori and Ecobank over how the interest on the judgment debt should be computed. Ecobank argued that the interest should be compounded annually, relying partly on an opinion from the Bank of Ghana. Mr Ofori, however, insisted that Ecobank’s own public representations and investment practice supported monthly compounding.
The dispute arose after Mr Ofori filed an amended entry of judgment claiming that the amount due to him had reached GH¢151,018,312.85. Ecobank challenged the computation, saying the proper figure, based on annual compounding, was GH¢96,304,972.41.
The court had earlier asked the Bank of Ghana to provide an opinion on the appropriate method for computing interest on call or fixed deposits. The Bank of Ghana said it had not prescribed any industry standard for such computation and that the method depended on the agreement between a bank and its customer. In the absence of a clear agreement, it recommended annual compounding because the investment had run for more than a decade.
But the Supreme Court declined to treat the Bank of Ghana’s recommendation as conclusive. The court said expert evidence is only a guide and is not binding on the court.
The court placed significant weight on Ecobank’s own public representations, including its online Systematic Investment Plan calculator, which showed monthly compound interest calculations. It found that Ecobank had not disputed those representations and had not shown that Mr Ofori’s investment was excluded from that method of calculation.
The court therefore held that Ecobank was estopped from treating Mr Ofori differently from its normal investment practice.
“On the contrary, we hold that the method of calculating the compound interest on the Respondent’s principal investment sum should be monthly and not annually,” the court ruled.
The court also rejected certain correspondence exchanged during settlement discussions, holding that they were privileged under section 105 of the Evidence Act and could not be relied on in the proceedings.
The ruling is significant because it clarifies the applicable method for calculating the judgment debt and may substantially affect the final amount payable by Ecobank to Mr Ofori. It also sends a broader message to financial institutions that public-facing representations on investment returns may carry legal consequences where customers rely on them.
The five-member panel was made up of Justice I.O. Tanko Amadu, Justice R. Adjei-Frimpong, Justice S. Dzamefe, Justice J. Bartels-Kodwo and Justice H. Amaleboa. Counsel for Ecobank included Ace Ankomah, Daad Akwesi and Ebo Dantse Benjamin, while Tsatsu Tsikata, Nana Boakye Mensah-Bonsu and Prince Noel Danquah represented Mr Ofori.
