Ecobank Liberia Limited v Genesis Liberia

Ecobank Liberia Lilüitecl by and thru its Managing ) Director and all authorized officers the City ol’ Monrovia, Liberia Appellant Versus Genesis Liberia by and thru its Managing Director and all authorized officers of the City of Monrovia, Liberia Appellee

APPEAL

PETITION FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT

Heard: June 10, 2026                                               Decided: August 27, 2026

MR. JUSTICE KANNEI-I DELIVERED TI-IE OPINION OF -rHE COURT

This appeal originates                             a petition for declaratory juclgnnent filed on March 24,

2024, in the Civil Law Court, Montserrado County, Republic of Liberia, by Genesis Liberia by and thru its General Manager George F. I-Ioward, appellee herein, against Ecobank Liberia Lim ited, appellant herein.

The facts cullilinating into the present appeal shows that between the years 2008 to 20 12, the appellee, Genesis Liberia by and thru its General Manager George F. Howard applied for and obtained several loans from Ecobank Liberia Lilliitecl with terms and conditions agreed upon by the parties. Following the execution of the loan agree:nent, the appellee began repayment of (he loan to the appellant as per the approved terms and conditions of the loan arrangelnent. I-lowever, the appellee at a certain point defaulted in the repayment of the loan, pronvting the appellant to file a petition for föreclosure before the Coniinercial Court. The Conn Inercial Court upon receipt of the petition ordered the appellee to file its returns to the petition within the statutory tinneframe to which instructions of the Co:nmercial Court, the appellee complied by filing its returns. Subsequently, while the petition ror foreclosure was

pending before the C01nnnercial Court, the parties disputecl the actual annount owed the appellant Banl<. To annicably resolve this issue, the appellant and the appellee reachecl an agreement to subnoit their dispute to an arbitral panel to cletel’lll ine the appellee’s actual indebtedness to the appellant. The court having received the agreennent to arbitrate ordered each of the clisputing party to subnnit the nanne of its representative for the arbitral proceedings and the Conunercial Court then appointed the head of the arbitration comnnittee. The arbitration panel began its work by reconciling the appellee’s bank statennents in the account helcl at the appellant Banl< and concluded in its report that the appellee’s total indebtedness to the appellant announced to One I-lundrecl Nineteen Thousand Seven I-lunclred EiQhty-Eight Dollars

Thirteen Cent (US$ 1 19, 788.13) and not Two I-lunclrecl Ten Thousand Four I-lunclrecl Eighty-Two Dollars Nine Cent United States Dollars (USS2 10, 482. 09) for which the petition for foreclosure was filed.

We cleeln it relevant to quote an excerpt of the arbitration report as follows, to wit:

“On J anuary 29, 2022, the petitioner sublilitlecl aclditional information to the chairperson to the effect that US $ 1 55,863.76 with payment details Ck 5704 PD IFO Genesis Liberia Inc., was discovered in Ecobank’s banking systenn in favor of the respondent however, the check was not deposited into the respondent’s Ecobank account but was deposited into an unknown account bearing account nunnber 1.

According to the petitioner this check was cleared through the Central Bank of Liberia Clearing I-louse beföre hitting the

UNDP account at Ecobank Liberia Ltd.,

Basecl upon this infornnation the chairperson inn nnediately subnnittecl this infornnation to the respondent requesting .for response, and also infornnecl all parties that the unknown account bearing account nunnber USD  would be investigated to deternnine the nanne of the bank, and the owner of the account.

On February 2, 2022, a subpoena duces tecunn was issuecl by the Conunercial Court on the Central Bank of Liberia (CBL) to provicle infornnation pertaining to the Coniinercial Bank that host account nunnber USD 102550001.

2

On February 8, 2022 the Central Bank of’ Liberia in response to the subpoena infornnecl the Court that the Supervision and Banking Departnnents of the CBL is unable to establish the

USD 102550001 .

Now, given this new inforl)lation fronn the Central Bank of Liberia (CBL) and all the facts and circunnstances painstakingly narrated herein above, the question that this arbitration naust answer is whether the respondent is inclebted to the petitioner and if so what is the actual annount the responclent owes the petitioner.

In answering the above question, it is prudent we briefly reiterate sonne salient undisputed facts. First, the question of whether or not the respondent obtainecl the loan fronn the petitioner is not in clispute. Seconclly, there are no deposit slips or records li•onn the respondent corporate office showing that it macle paynnents to the petitioner in settling it obligations. Thirdly the only evidence showing that the respondent Inade part-payinents towarcl the loan are the bank statennents procluced by the petitioner which show an outstanding balance of US $21 as Illoney owecl the petitioner. Last but not the least, it is undisputed that while this arbitration was ongoing the annount of US $90,693,96 was discovered in a write-olT account at the IEcobank Liberia Ltd.,

Now, given the above prennise, we have deternninecl that the facts and evidence presented herein clearly establishecl that the respondent is indebted to the petitioner and that the actual debt owed is US $1 19,788. 13. This atnount represents the initial annount sued for (US $210,482.09) Illinus the US $90,693.96 that was discovered in the write off account.

This position of the arbitration is supported by the fact that the respondent failed to produce a:vy evidence to controvert the petitioner claims although the respondent hacl earlier, in its Decenlber 23, 2021 email, pronnised to procluce all relevant clocunnents to establish its counter-clainn. We should state here that the proof we expectecl fronn the respondent were original deposit slips, or sonne paytnent confirnnation fronn UNDP that the annount of US $155,863.76 was clepositecl in Ecobank in favor of the respondent, or a letter of connplaint fronn the respondent adclressecl to Ecobanl</UNDP connplaining the financial irregularities carriecl on its account back then in 201 1.

We are of the view that hacl the responclent procluce these pieces of evidence inunecliately stated herein above, we are certain that these pieces of evidence would establish: (i) that the respondent paid the aniount of US $ 1 55,863.76 into their Ecobanl< account as clainned, (ii) shift the burden of proof towards the petitioner to show that the US $1 55,863.76 was not depositecl into the Ecobank, and (iii) off-set the loan connpletely in the event the petitioner fails to disprove the respondent clainns.

But none of these pieces of evidence were produced during the investigation. To the contrary, the respondent ovvn evidence aclclucecl during the investigation established that the respondent Operation Manager, Janice C. Ricks receivecl the check of US

1 55,863.76 on May 22, 20 1 1 the UNDI^D and in return she issl.lecl a receipt thereto in favor of UNDP. ^el*he records also show that this particular US $1 55,863.76 with paynnent details

Ck 5704 PD IFO Genesis Liberia Inc., was debited fronl the UNDP’s account at Ecobank Liberia Ltd., on IVIay 3 1, 201 1 .

Although there are no deposit slips fronl the respondent showing where this check was actually deposited, records from Ecobank Liberia Ltd., tends to establish that this check in the annount of US $155,863.76 was never depositecl into an Ecobank Liberia account, rather sanae was deposited in an u nk n own ban l</financial institution with account n ber USD 102550001 . The petitioner evidence tencls to establish that the said check went through the clearing house at the Central Bank of Liberia before the UNIDP account at Ecobanl< was debited in the amount of US $ 155,863.76.

Now, it should be quickly noted here that while we are a bit concern over the evidence produced by the petitioner Ecobank regardi ng the unknown banl< wi th accol.lllt number USD1 02550001, on the other hand we are surprised, bewildered, ancl seriously bafflecl over the question as to why the respondent coulcl retrieve and produce the receipt of May 22, 201 1 1²01′ the annount of US $155,863.76 signed by its Operation N/lanager, Jan ice C. Ricks, but then failed to produce the deposit slips of IV[ay 3 1 , 201 1 which will eventually show where the US $1 55,863.76 was deposited. Is the IVIay 22, 201 1 receipt signed by Janice C. Ricks noore inn portant than the deposit slip of May 3 1, 201 1?

In acldition to this unsolved question as to where the US $ 155,863.76 was actually depositecl; the respondent also clicl not produce any letter of connplaint addressed to Ecobank or UNDP connplaining about the noissing US $155,863.76; ancl there are no pieces of evidence to show the responclent ever challenged the issue of a naissing US $ 155,863.76 that was allegedly deposited since 201 1 .

Be that as it may, we will be renniss if we fail to recognize and connnnent on the conduct of Mr. L. Olanclor Boyce, Jr., when he decided to clisclose the annount of US $90,693.96 in favor of the respondent January 1 8, 2022, which of’f-set and acljustecl the loan to US $1 1 9,788. 13. This act of Mr. Boyce is iconic and commendable because oftwo reasons: (i) Mr. Boyce disclosure of January 18, 2022, on the annount of US $90,693.96 was long after the investigation was already closed and awaiting final award; (ii) it can be vividly recalled that all these transactions surrounding the announts of US $ 155,863.76 and US $90,693.96 took place over 1 0 years ago by the respondent; and that the respondent, who happens to be the beneficiary of these announts only produce receipts for the checks it receivecl fronn UN DP but

Pail to present any proof like deposit slips showina that the annount was indeed deposited into Ecobank; or a written connplaint red-flagging allegecl financial irregularities at

Ecobank.

These assertions that the responclent failed to produce proof showing that it deposited the amount of US $1 55,863.76 into an Ecobanl< account is attested by records before the Conunercial Court and the arbitration proceeclings which show that the only reliance the respondent clepencled on in nnal<ing its case were mere avernnents, Illere speculations, and presunnptions. And, as we stated earlier herein above “nnere allegations of a claim do

as to warrant a court or jury accepting it as true ancl enable the court to pronounce with certainty concerning the nnatter in dispute.” Knuckles v. TRADEVCO 40 LIGR 5/ 1, 525 (2001). ”

The trial court having received the arbitral award ruled as follows:

“The law citations and oral argu noents of the parties present one carclinal issue for deternn ination. The issue is whether cleclaratory judgment will lie to declare the rights of petitioner in respect of a check för US$ 1 55,863.76 issuecl by the UNDP to petitioner? The answer is a resounding “yes”.

Section 43.1 of the Civil Procedure Law provides that courts of record within their respective j urisdiction shall have the power to cleclare rights, status, ancl other legal relations whether Ol’ not further relief is or could be clainnecl; that no action or proceecling shall be open to objection on the ground that a declaratory judgment is prayed f01•; and that the cleclaration nnay be either affirmative or negative in fornn and effect; and that such declarations shall have the force and effect of a final juclgment.

Our law also provides that the existence of another adequate remedy does not preclude ajuclgnnent for declaratory relief in cases where it is appropriate. I LCLR, Civil Proceclure Law, Section

43.6.

In the instant case, the petitioner seeks a juclgnnent for declaratory relief in respect of a check for US$ 1 55,863.76 issuecl by the UNDP in fhvor of petitioner during the period May l , 201 1 to January 3 1 , 2012.

This COUPt takes judicial notice of an aclnnission nnacle by respondent, through its representative on the Board of Arbitration constitutecl by the Conn mercial Court, to the effect that a check for US$155,863.76 with banking details CK 5704 PID IFO Genesis Liberia Inc., was discoverecl in respondent Ecobank’s banking systenn in favor of petitioner, but that the check was not cleposited into petitioner’s account at the respondent bank, but was cleposited

into an unknown account bearing account nun)ber USD102550001 . Respondent admitted (luring the arbitration hearing that the check for US$ 1 55,963.76 was clearecl through the Central Bank of Liberia Clearing I-louse before hitting the UNDP account at the respondent bank. This court says that all acllüissions nnacle by a party himself or by his agent acting within the scope of his authority are adnoissible. I LCLR, Civil Procedure Law, Section 25.8(1 The fact that the check for US$ 1 55,863.76 was discovered by respondent in its banking systenn is crucial in these declaratory judgment proceedings. It is an adno ission that respondent received the check but failed to credit sanne to petitioner’s account.

This court says tlvat the check for US$ 155,863.76 issued by the UNDP in favor of petitioner would not have been cliscoverecl in respondent’s banking systenn if respondent had not presented sanne [’01’ clearing at the CBL clearing house.

Wherefore, this court declares the following:

l . That the check for US$ 1 55,863.76 issued by the UNDP, with banking details CK 5704 PID IFO Genesis Liberia Inc. legally belongs to petitioner; and

2. The proceeds of the check, announting to US$ 155,863.76 shoulcl be credited by respondent to petitioner’s account at Ecobank Liberia Limited and subsequently applied against petitioner’s outstanding loan obligation to respondent. And it is hereby so declared.”

It is the above-stated ruling of the trial juclge to which the appellant noted exceptions by filing a five-count bill of exceptions, outlining the alleged errors conunittecl by the trial judge. We quote in its entirety the appellant’s five-count bill of exceptions as follows, to wit:

l . That Your Honor erred and nnacle reversible error when you awarded the annount of US$ 155,863.76 to Petitioner basecl upon an Arbitration Report in the Comnnercial COUl•t that did not award the said amount to Petitioner during the proceeding.

2. That Your I-Ionor erred and nnacle reversible error when you failed, refused and neglected to give Respondent representative’s statennent at the Arbitration Board a proper interpretation. The statelnent is:

through its representative on the Board of’ Arbitration constitutecl by the Connnnercial Court to the effect that a check US$ 1 55,863.76 with banking details CK 5704 PD IFO Genesis Liberia, Inc. was discovered in Respondent Ecobank banking systenn in favor of

Petitioner, but that the check was not clepositecl into petitioner’s account at the Respondent’s bank”

3. That, Your Honor erred and Inade reversible error when you failed, refused and neglected to consider all the findings in the Arbitration Report at the Commercial Court that you based your ruling on. Especially, the part of the arbitration report that says:

“we are of the view that had the respondent procluce these pieces of evidence inunediately stated herein above, we are certain that these pieces of evidence would establish:

• that the respondent paid the annount of US$ 155,863.76 into their Ecobank account as clainnecl.
• shift the burden of proof towards the petitioner to show that the

US$ 155,863.76 was not clepositecl into the Ecobank, and

• ofT-set the loan cotnpletely in the event the petitioner fails to disprove the respondent clailns.”

But none of these pieces of evidence were produce during the investigation. To the contrary, the responclent own evidence aclducecl during the investigation established that the respondent Operation Manager, Janice C. Risks received the check of US$ 1 55,863.76 011 May 22, 201 1 fronn the UNDP and in return she issued a receipt thereto in favor of UNDP. The recorcls also show that this particular USS 1 55,863.76 with paynnent details CK 5704 PD IFO Genesis Liberia, Inc. was clebitecl from the UNDP’s account at Ecobank Liberia, Ltd on May 3 1, 20 1 1 .

Although there are no deposit slips fronn respondent showing where the check was deposited, records fronn Ecobank Liberia, Ltcl. tends to establish that the check in the annount US$ 155,863.76 was never deposited into an Ecobank account rather was cleposited in an unk nown ban k/ fi nancial institution with account n u ber USD10255()00 1 . The petitioner evidence tencls to establish that the said check went through the clearing house at the Central Bank of Liberia before the UNDP account at Ecobank was debited in the of USS 1 55,863.76.

^e no acle reversible error when you 4. l*hat, Your Honor erred and declared that the check for US$ 155,863.76 issued by the UNDP, with banking details CK 5704 PD IFO Genesis Liberia, Inc. legally belongs to Petitioner in the face of the Arbitration Board findings that the said annount was debitecl from UNDP account with Ecobank Liberia Lilliitecl on May 3 1 , 201 1 , and that the annount of US$ 1 55,863.76 was never deposited into an Ecobank Liberia account rather sanae was deposited in an unknown bank/ financial institution with account

5. That, Your I-Ionor errecl and nnacle reversible error when you declared in your ruling that:

“the proceed of the check announting to USS 1 55,863.76 should be credited by respondent to petitioner’s account at Ecobank Liberia Linnited and subsequently applied against petitioner outstanding loan obligation to respondent.”

I-laving reviewed the appellant’s five-count bill of exceptions, this Court notes that the singular issue dispositive of this case is whether the trial judge’s modification of the arbitral award was in consonance with the law controlling given the facts and circumstances of this case?

_ln addressing this issue, we first note that the arbitral panel concluded in its report that the disputed US$ 1 55,863.76 for which the petition for declarat01Y judgnnent was filed was never deposited into the appellee’s Ecobank account but rather deposited into an unknown account bearing account nun) ber USD 102550001. Moreover, we see fronn our review of the arbitration award that the appellee neglected to provide the requisite evidence to substantiate its clainns that the said amount was deposited in its account at the appellant bank and that the appellant failed to apply it against the loan it owed the appellant bank. These findings should have been sufficient to prevent the trial juclge from noodifying the arbitral award especially at the disposition of law issues.

Section 64.12 provides for the modification or correction of an arbitration award as follows:

” l . Tinne linnitations and grounds for application. Upon application nnade within thirty days after delivery of a copy of the awarcl to the applicant, the COUl’t nvay modify or correct the award where:

1. There was evident liliscalculation of figures, or an evident noistake in the description of any person, thing, or property re ferrecl to in the award; or
2. b) The arbitrators have awardecl upon a nnatter not subnoittecl to thenn and the award may be corrected without affecting the nnerits of the decision upon the issues subnoitted; or
3. The award is innperfect as a nnatter of fornn not affecting the noerits of the con troversy. “

The statute is clear in stating the grounds upon which the court nnay noocli f\y an arbitration award to include: nnistakes in calculation of figures, eviclent noistake in the description of any person, thing, or property, the board of arbitration presenting an award upon a nnatter not submitted to thenn, ancl the arbitration award being imperfect as a matter of fornn. In the instant case, the trial judge acted without the pale of the law by setting aside the arbitration award.

Section 64. I of the Civil Procedure Law on arbitration provides as follows:

“A written agreennent to subnoit to arbitration any controversy existing at the tinie of the nnaking of the agreement or any controversy thereafter arising is valicl, enforceable without regard to the justiciable character of the controversy, and irrevocable except upon such grounds as exist for the revocation of any contract.”

Taking judicial cognizance of the above quoted principle of law, the Suprenne Court has held in a long line of cases that “where the parties enter into an arbitration agreeinent sublilitting any controversy existing at the tinne of the nnal<ing of the agreennent or any controversy arising thereafter, (Ine agreennent is valid, en forceable without regard to the justiciable character of the controversy.” Chicri Brothers, Inc. v. Overseas Distribution Corporation, 40 LLR 1 28, 132 (2000); Emirates Trading

Agency Company v. Global Africa frnport and Export C0171pany, 42 LLR 204, 2 13 (2004); Berry v. Intestate Estate of’ Bel/ie, Suprenne Cotil•t Opinion, October Terill 2013; Garc/iner v. Jcunes, Suprenne Court Opinion, March Terna 20 1 5. I-lence, it was ultra vines for the trial juclge to have modi fiecl the arbitration award absent any of the statutory grounds, and we so hold.

The Civil Procedure Law, Rev Code 1 :43. I states that “courts of record within their respective jurisdiction shall have power to declare rights, status, and other legal relations whether or not further relief is O l’ coulcl be clailnecl…the declaration nnay be either affirnnative or negative in form and effect; and such declaration shall have the force and efTect of a final judgnjent”. However, it is the law that when a proceeding involves the deternnination of an issue of fact, the right to trial by jury nnay be demandecl uncler the circunnstances and in the manner provided by law. Id. Section 43.9.

Aclditionally, the granting of declaratory relief rests within the sound cliscretion of the court. A court nnay refuse to rencler a declaratory judgment where the judgnnent, if rendered, would not tern) inate the uncertainty or controversy giving rise to the proceeding. Civil Procedure Law, Rev. Code / : 43.5; Ministry of //?formalion,

Culture Af/élirs Touris/ll v. One Media ./ncorporatec/, Supreme Coup/ Opinion, March Tewn, A.D. 2022; Jau;hary v. watts, 42 _LLR 474 (2005). As seen the factual scenario presented in this case, the granting of declaratory j udgnnent could not ternn inate the unresolved factual issl.les that are yet to be deterill ined. Therefore, the trial judge erred when he grantecl the appellee’s petition för declaratory judgnnent.

WHEREFORE AND IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the ruling of the trial judge is hereby affirmecl. The Clerk of this COI.lrt is ordered to send Mandate to the court below connnnancling the j udge presiding therein to resunoe jurisdiction over this case and give effect to the Judgnnent of this Opinion. Costs are rulecl against thee appellant. AND IT IS I-IEREBY SO ORDERED.

When this case vvas called for heaving, Counsel/or Jilli/71Y Saah Bomb(), Sr. ()flhe

Central Law Offices, Inc. appearedfor (he appellant. Counsellor G. J/Vi€fueh A (frec/

Sayeh ()flhe Law Offices of Sayeh & Sayeh appearec/fbr 1/7e appellee.