JG Resources and Directors Face Possible Imprisonment Over Alleged Court Defiance

JG Resources Limited and three of its directors are facing possible imprisonment following allegations that they defied a court order issued in an ongoing commercial dispute.

The directors named in the contempt proceedings are Papa Yaw Owusu-Ankomah, Maame Akosua Asama Kuranchie, and Kwaku Appiah Yeboah. The action has been initiated by Sesi-Edem Company Limited, which accuses JG Resources of failing to comply with orders issued by the High Court of Ghana.

The dispute reportedly stems from a gold transaction agreement involving an overseas entity, Tayvest-FZCO. Sesi-Edem alleges that its company name and the signature of its managing director were used without authorization in connection with the agreement. The company claims it did not approve or participate in the transaction and only became aware of the matter after details surfaced publicly.

Following these allegations, the court is said to have granted an injunction and preservation orders. These reportedly required JG Resources to freeze certain bank accounts, including one held with Access Bank, and to deposit disputed funds into court pending the final determination of the case. The company was also directed to file a sworn affidavit disclosing relevant assets tied to the transaction.

However, Sesi-Edem maintains that JG Resources and its directors did not comply with the court’s directives. According to the contempt application, no funds were paid into court, no affidavit of disclosure was filed, and no application was made to vary or suspend the order.

Under Ghanaian law, deliberate disobedience of a court order may constitute contempt of court. If the court finds that the company and its directors wilfully ignored its directives, they could face penalties ranging from fines to imprisonment.

The upcoming hearing will determine whether the alleged non-compliance amounts to contempt and whether the individuals involved should be committed accordingly. The outcome could have serious legal and reputational implications for both the company and its leadership.

The case serves as a reminder that court orders are binding and that failure to obey them can carry significant personal consequences for company directors.