High Court backs police order for hotel takeover
The High Court in Accra on July 21, 2026 granted a police assistance order that permits the UK‑based Cola Holdings Limited and its appointed receiver, Nii Amanor Dodoo, to take possession of the No. 1 Oxford Street Hotel in Osu, a property linked to Ghanaian businessman Nana Kwame Bediako, known as “Cheddar.”
Court grants police assistance after failed negotiations
Justice Samuel Faraday Johnson issued the warrant after the creditor and the receiver told the court they could not secure the hotel peacefully. The court noted that Cola Holdings had registered a security interest in the building at the Collateral Registry and had obtained a Memorandum of No Objection to realise that security. Under the Borrowers and Lenders Act, 2020 (Act 1052), a creditor may seek police assistance when faced with resistance to possession.
Kensington Residential Partners 1 Limited, the company through which Bediako holds the hotel, opposed the application. The opposition was presented by Bediako himself, but the court dismissed the arguments, finding that the company had not supplied sufficient evidence to justify refusing the order.
Legal representation and scope of the order
Counsel for the claimant and the receiver included Tsatsu Tsikata and Tata Kosi Foliba, while Bobby Banson and Isaac Akerefie‑Mensah represented Kensington Residential Partners 1 Limited. The order is limited to the police assistance request; it does not resolve any other disputes or claims between the parties.
The decision follows a series of proceedings triggered by a judgment from the High Court of England and Wales involving Coca‑Cola holdings. In January 2026, Bediako publicly disputed liability under that judgment and said he had instructed lawyers to challenge its enforcement in Ghana. He also claimed the loan facility at issue was obtained by Kensington Residential Partners 1 Limited from the International Finance Corporation, and he appealed a High Court decision on the foreign judgment’s registration.
While the current ruling does not address the merits of those appeals, it empowers the receiver to take control of the hotel and realise the security interest. This marks a notable step in the ongoing enforcement saga.
The case highlights how cross‑border financial disputes can affect local assets.
Beyond the immediate seizure, the order shows the procedural safeguards built into Ghanaian law for creditors seeking to enforce security. By requiring a formal registration of the interest and a documented memorandum of no objection, the system aims to balance the rights of lenders with the protection of property owners against arbitrary dispossession. The High Court’s reliance on the Borrowers and Lenders Act demonstrates the statutory framework that authorises police involvement only after peaceful avenues have been exhausted, reinforcing the principle that force is a last resort.
The property itself, described in court filings as a large, aesthetic white building, occupies a prominent corner adjacent to Dankwa Circle. Its visibility and location have made it a landmark in the busy Osu district, adding symbolic weight to the dispute.
Appointment of Nii Amanor Dodoo as receiver reflects a procedural step that follows the creditor’s entitlement under the Act.
Legal counsel for Cola Holdings, Tsatsu Tsikata and Tata Kosi Foliba, have a history of representing high‑profile financial entities in complex cross‑jurisdictional matters. Their involvement signals the seriousness with which Cola Holdings is pursuing enforcement, while the representation of Kensington Residential Partners 1 Limited by Bobby Banson and Isaac Akerefie‑Mensah indicates the defendant’s commitment to contesting the seizure despite the court’s dismissal of their evidentiary submissions.
In the broader context, the dispute originates from a foreign judgment that was previously enforced against Coca‑Cola holdings, creating a precedent for Ghanaian courts to recognise and act upon external creditor claims. Bediako’s challenge to that judgment—citing the source of the loan from the International Finance Corporation—introduces questions about the interplay between sovereign lending institutions and private creditors, though those issues remain unresolved pending separate appeals.
By confining its decision to the matter of police assistance, the High Court has deliberately avoided premature adjudication of the substantive financial arguments. This procedural restraint allows the parties to continue litigating the underlying liability, the validity of the foreign judgment, and any alleged procedural irregularities without the shadow of immediate enforcement actions.
Stakeholders will now watch how the receiver proceeds with taking possession, managing the hotel’s operations, and eventually monetising the asset. The outcome will not only affect the balance sheets of Cola Holdings and Kensington Residential Partners 1 Limited but also set a practical example for future cross‑border enforcement actions involving Ghanaian property.
