Nana Kwame Bediako: London Judgment Challenge Over Disputed Signature

• Nana Kwame Bediako is challenging a $14.9 million London High Court judgment by Cola Holdings Limited.
• He disputes the authenticity of his signature on a deed of indemnity for an $18 million loan guarantee for No. 1 Oxford Street Accra.
• Mr. Bediako claims he was in Nigeria when the document was allegedly signed, suggesting an electronic signature insertion.
• His legal filing questions the independence of the witness, his former assistant Reginald Sittie, due to alleged ties with Cola Holdings' head.
• Cola Holdings has categorically denied the allegations and plans to submit a comprehensive defense.

The central contention in Mr. Bediako's new claim revolves around the authenticity of a signature on a critical loan indemnity document, which Cola Holdings used to establish his financial liability.

Businessman Nana Kwame Bediako has initiated a fresh legal challenge in the London High Court, seeking to overturn a $14.9 million judgment previously secured against him by Cola Holdings Limited. The central contention in Mr. Bediako's new claim revolves around the authenticity of a signature on a critical loan indemnity document, which Cola Holdings used to establish his financial liability.

Mr. Bediako asserts that the signature appearing on the deed of indemnity, dated January 18, 2018, is not his own. This document was presented as evidence that he had agreed to guarantee half of an $18 million loan. This substantial loan was specifically allocated to finance the construction of No. 1 Oxford Street, a serviced apartment development located in Accra.

The core of the Nana Kwame Bediako London judgment challenge lies in the disputed signature on the deed of indemnity. According to legal filings, Mr. Bediako explicitly states that he did not create the signature on the document and has no knowledge of how it came to be affixed. The deed was reportedly executed at his office in Accra, with his then-executive assistant, Reginald Sittie, acting as a witness.

However, Mr. Bediako's legal team contends that he was physically present in Nigeria on the precise date the document was purportedly signed. His lawyers suggest that the most plausible explanation for the appearance of his signature is that an electronic copy was digitally inserted into the deed without his express knowledge or consent, thereby questioning the deed of indemnity authenticity.

Further complicating the Cola Holdings Limited lawsuit, Mr. Bediako's legal challenge also raises significant questions regarding the independence of the witness, Reginald Sittie. The filing alleges a close relationship between Mr. Sittie and Azad Cola, the head of Cola Holdings, claiming that the former executive assistant directly handled arrangements for Mr. Cola's visas and accommodation.

As additional evidence of this potentially compromising relationship, Mr. Bediako points to a Rolex watch that Mr. Cola allegedly gifted to Mr. Sittie in the spring of 2018. While Mr. Bediako refrains from labeling the gift as a bribe, he presents it as an indication that Mr. Sittie's independence as a witness might have been compromised. The Times newspaper reported that it was unable to reach Mr. Sittie for comment on these allegations.

In light of these claims, Mr. Bediako is petitioning the London court to set aside the January 2025 judgment that found him liable for the $14.9 million. Beyond nullifying the existing ruling, he is also seeking compensation for the financial losses he asserts he has incurred as a result of the initial judgment. However, in Ghana, the High Court has already enforced the UK judgment, ordering Mr. Bediako to pay over US$14.9 million plus interest and costs, and has dismissed his applications to set aside the registration and restrain enforcement of the judgment. Cola Holdings, through its representative Lawrence Cartier, has vehemently rejected all of Mr. Bediako's allegations. The company has stated that it "categorically denies the claims made" and has affirmed its intention to submit "a comprehensive defence" to the court, indicating a robust legal battle ahead concerning the No. 1 Oxford Street Accra loan guarantee.

Lawyers should advise clients on robust signature verification protocols, particularly for high-value cross-border loan guarantees, to mitigate risks of disputed authenticity claims. This case also underscores the need to scrutinize witness independence in document execution.

Source: Original reporting via myjoyonline.com