A party in a commercial suit that was eventually settled in the Supreme Court of Ghana revealed that he
was terrified about what the National Democratic Congress (NDC) would do to his business if it won
power. This fear, he alleged, was the reason why he transferred most of his shares to his Company
Secretary, who eventually sued him for the ownership of the shares and won in Ghana’s Supreme Court.
Mario de Catalda claimed in his pleadings that he had been approached for funding by an official of the
NDC, and he became fearful of what that political party would do to him when it won power, forcing him
to transfer the shares to one Tatiana Boya, his Company Secretary.
The amazing revelations came to light in the case of Boya versus Mario de Catalda decided in the
Supreme Court on March 13, 2024.
In his summing up of the facts ahead of giving the landmark ruling on transfer of company shares, Yonny
Kulendi JSC, a Justice of the Supreme Court of Ghana, wrote that it was contended that prior to the 2008
Presidential and Parliamentary Elections, one Don Arthur, who was soliciting for funds for the National
Democratic Congress (NDC) made a request on the 1st Defendant (Mario de Catalda) but the
expectation of financial assistance was not met as 1st Defendant contributed a pittance of GH¢ 500.00.
“Having failed to support the NDC, and thereby causing their disaffection towards him, and with the
NDC winning the 2008 Presidential Elections, 2nd Defendant became a target.
“It was further averred that 1st Defendant was perceived to be a sympathizer of the New Patriotic Party
(NPP) and therefore the 2nd Defendant was at risk of government interference.
“To insulate the company from the government interferences, the 1st Defendant transferred the
majority of the shares to the Plaintiff to make good the impression that she held substantial stakes in
the business.
“It was further contended that the Plaintiff and 1st Defendant had a collateral oral agreement that
Plaintiff was to hold the shares as trustee for the 1st Defendant without any beneficial interest. The
transfer, it was further contended, has not been approved by the board of directors.
“It was further contended that the Plaintiff and 1st Defendant had a collateral oral agreement that
Plaintiff was to hold the shares as trustee for the 1st Defendant without any beneficial interest.
“The transfer, it was further contended, has not been approved by the board of directors. Indeed, the
shares were to be returned to 1st Defendant once the political dust settled. No consideration has been
paid for the shares.
“The 1st Defendant alleged that the conduct of the Plaintiff among others amounted to fraud and
breach of trust,” parts of the ruling stated.
Although the Supreme Court eventually did not find merit in Catalda’s claims, this case brings into stark
relief the relationship between Ghana’s predatory two ruling political parties. Many business people,
particularly foreigners, believe that the activities of the two political parties do not inure to the fortunes
of business entities in Ghana, and are liable to be targeted if they refuse offers to contribute funds
during campaign time.
It has been alleged, for instance, that the GN Bank was targeted by the ruling New Patriotic Party (NPP)
because its founder, Dr. Papa Kwesi Nduom, refused to donate funds ahead of the 2016 general
elections to the NPP.
