The Receiver of No.1 Oxford Street Hotel, Nii Amanor Dodoo, and Cola Holdings Ltd have reportedly appealed a decision directing the Receiver to relinquish possession of the property to Kensington Residential Partners 1 Ltd.
The appeal follows a ruling delivered by the vacation court, presided over by Justice John-Mark Alifo, on August 21, 2026. The court set aside the Receiver’s possession of No.1 Oxford Street Hotel and ordered that the property be handed over to Kensington Residential Partners 1 Ltd.
In their Notice of Appeal, the Receiver and Cola Holdings Ltd argue that the decision was fundamentally flawed and contrary to both the Constitution and the Borrowers and Lenders Act, 2020 (Act 1052). They also contend that the ruling failed to take into account a binding decision previously issued by the Court of Appeal.
A central issue raised in the appeal is the jurisdiction of the vacation court that heard the matter. The Receiver maintains that the court, sitting as Commercial Court 2, lacked the jurisdiction to determine the application.
The affidavit filed in support of an application for a stay of execution points to a publication on the Judicial Service website concerning the assignment of cases during the vacation period. According to the affidavit, the publication indicated that matters from Commercial Court 6 were to be heard by the vacation judge sitting in Commercial Court 8.
The applicants have described the ruling as “unreasonable and irrational,” arguing that its effect would be to place No.1 Oxford Street Hotel in the possession of a party that, in their view, has not demonstrated any intention to repay the outstanding debt.
They further argue that the decision could revive conduct that is prohibited and treated as criminal under the Borrowers and Lenders Act.
The Receiver is also challenging what he considers a procedural error in the handling of the case. According to the affidavit, counsel intends to raise the issue as a preliminary matter and ask the court to correct what they describe as an error in hearing and determining the application.
The Receiver’s position is that the vacation judge’s warrant did not extend to matters pending before Commercial Court 6.
The applicants are therefore seeking to halt the enforcement of the orders while the appeal is determined, insisting that the case has strong prospects of success.
“It is, therefore, in the interest of justice that execution of the orders of His Lordship be stayed pending an appeal which stands a great chance of success,” the affidavit states.
The application for stay of execution has been scheduled for hearing on October 16, 2026, when the court is expected to consider the arguments surrounding both the enforcement of the orders and the jurisdictional concerns raised by the Receiver.
