The High Court in Accra has overturned a ruling delivered by the Dansoman Circuit Court on May 30, 2025, bringing an end to a legal dispute involving businessman Toh You Kang, amidst trouble of the Greater Accra Chairman of the ruling National Democratic Congress (NDC) Mr. Emmanuel Nii Ashie Moore for alleged human rights violations of the Singaporean.
In its judgment, the High Court, exercising its supervisory jurisdiction, granted an application for certiorari and prohibition filed by the applicant through his counsel, Cephas Boyuoh.
The application sought to challenge the legality of the Dansoman Circuit Court’s decision, which had led to the seizure of Kang’s properties and further proceedings against him.
The High Court ruled that the Circuit Court had erred in its decision and therefore quashed the entire ruling along with all consequential orders associated with it.
The court further prohibited the trial judge at Dansoman from taking any additional steps in the matter.
As part of the judgment, the High Court ordered the immediate release of all properties belonging to the applicant, restoring ownership rights to Kang after months of litigation.
The case, titled Republic v. Circuit Court, Dansoman; Ex Parte: Toh You Kang, highlights
the power of the High Court to review and correct lower court decisions that are deemed to have gone beyond their jurisdiction or contravened legal procedure.
The ruling is expected to set a strong precedent for similar matters in which applicants seek relief from higher courts against rulings they consider unjust or procedurally flawed.
Background of the matter
Below are some excerpts of the Affidavit in Support for the Enforcement of the Human Rights violations of the Singaporean.
An affidavit of Mr Kang in support of the application for enforcement of his fundamental human rights noted that the contents of the affidavit, unless otherwise stated, are matters which are within his personal knowledge.
It stated that at the hearing of this application, counsel for the applicant shall seek leave of this honourable court to refer to all the processes filed in this suit as if same were reproduced in this affidavit in extenso and sworn to on oath.
It contended that in the year 2023, Toh You Kang entered a business transactions with his Chinese business partner, Mrs Liang Liu Bing, involving the purchase and sale of electric cables between Singapore and China.
The affidavit noted that the commercial relationship continued into the year 2024, during which the financial transfers were made between the parties in the furtherance of the said electric cable trading business.
It indicated that subsequently, the applicant, Toh You Kang was informed by his Chinese business associate, Mrs Liang Liu Bing of her interest in exploring investment opportunities in Africa, with particular focus in Ghana,
According to the affidavit, she further inquired whether applicant, Toh You Kang will be willing to diversify his investment portfolio by participating in the Ghanaian energy sector, specifically through the distribution of electric cables to the Electricity Company of Ghana, one of the country’s principal power distributors.
The affidavit noted that although Toh You Kang had little to know prior knowledge of the Ghanaian energy sector, he was persuaded by the investment prospects presented by Mrs Liang Liu Bing and saw little reason to doubt her credibility, having previously engaged in several successful business transactions with her.
It indicated that pursuant these discussions,Toh You Kang travelled from Singapore to Dubai, where he met with Mrs Liang Liu Bing, and thereafter, the two travelled together to Ghana to meet with the said business contact, herein referred to as the respondent (Emmanuel Nii Ashie Moore).
The affidavit averred that during the meeting held in Ghana, Toh You Kang was formally introduced to the respondent, Mr Ashie Moore who successfully persuaded Toh You Kang of his extensive connections with key stakeholders in Ghana’s energy sector and presented the market as a viable and lucrative investment opportunity.
It explained that in furtherance of Mr Ashie Moore efforts to pursue the applicant (Toh You Kang), he the respondent informed the applicant that he was the Greater Accra Regional Chairman of the NDC, who was then the opposition party.
The affidavit indicated that notwithstanding the respondent, Mr Ashie Moore assured the applicant that he retained considerable influence within the then incumbent government, and that any investment made by the applicant would not face obstruction despite the NDC being in opposition.
According to the affidavit, following initial feasibility studies and an assessment of the Ghanaian energy market, the applicant and the respondent proceeded to incorporate a company by name NSG Innovation Limited, with the applicant owing forty percent (40%) of the issued shares and the respondent holding the remaining sixty percent (60%).
Upon the successful incorporation of NSG Innovation Limited, the applicant returned to Singapore leaving the respondent in charge of the company’s operations and responsible for actively pursuing business opportunities on behalf of both parties.
It pointed that whilst the applicant remained in Singapore, the respondent informed him of purported breakthrough, stating that he, Ashie Moore was on the verge of securing a supply contract with the Electricity Company of Ghana, valued at One million United States Dollars (USD$1,000,000).
Additionally, the affidavit mentioned that the respondent informed the applicant that an amount of One Hundred Thousand of United States Dollars (USD$1000,000) representing ten percent (10%) of the contract sum, was required as a deposit payment to the Electricity Company of Ghana in irder to facilitate the award of a contract for the supply of the electric cables.
The affidavit stated that the applicant acting upon the respondents representation transfered the sum of One Hundred Thousand of United States Dollars (USD$1000,000) to the respondent for the purpose of making the said deposit payment to the Electricity Company of Ghana attached and marked as Exhibit “A” series in the document in possession of this news outlet.
According to the affidavit, a few week following the aforementioned transfer of the deposit payment, the respondent informed the applicant that he was on the verge of securing an additional contract from the Electricity Company of Ghana valued at Six Million United States Dollars (USS$6,000,000), and further stated to the applicant that a sum of Six Million United States Dollars (USS$6,000,000), representing ten percent (10%) of the contract value, was required as a deposit payment to facilitate the award of the said contract.
It avered that on this occasion, the respondent dispatched an aide to Singapore to collect the required fund of USD600,000 from the applicant.
In addition to the earlier requested amount, the respondent demanded that the applicant provide an additional sum of One Hundred Thousand of United States Dollars (USS$1,000,000) to cover operational expenses.
It asserted that the said agent of the respondent by name Henry, met the applicant in Singapore, where the applicant handed over a total amount of equivalent Seven Hundred Thousand of United States Dollars (USD 7,000,000), comprising the previously requested Six Hundred Thousand United States Dollars (USD 6,000,000) as a purported deposit for the ECG contract, and One Hundred Thousand of United States Dollars (USD 1,000,000) for operational cost.
According to the affidavit, the respondent later claimed to have a Four Hundred and Fifty Thousand of United States Dollars (USD 450,000) from Vice President but the applicant ignored him requesting on phone that the respondent focuses on the contracts for which the deposit payments have been made.
Given that the respondent was unable to syphon further money with his baseless stories of having secured contracts, the respondent on 5th August 2024 practically begged applicant for money.
Read the entire HR application against Mr. Ashie Moore below
This was in the matter of an application filed to invoke the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court and in a matter of an application for certiorari and prohibition under order 55 of the High Court (civil procedure) rules ,2004(C.L.47).
Source: newsghana.com.gh
