Businessman Nana Kwame Bediako is challenging a $14.9 million judgment obtained against him by Cola Holdings Limited, arguing that the signature used to establish his liability on a loan indemnity document was not his.
In a fresh claim filed at the High Court in London, Bediako disputes the authenticity of a deed of indemnity relied on by Cola Holdings in its original case.
The document was presented as evidence that he had agreed to guarantee half of an $18 million loan secured to finance the construction of No. 1 Oxford Street, a serviced apartment development in Accra.
Bediako’s legal filing states that the signature on the deed, dated January 18, 2018, “was not made by him”. He also says he does not know how a signature bearing his name came to appear on the document.
The deed was reportedly signed at his office in Accra and witnessed by his then executive assistant, Reginald Sittie. However, Bediako maintains that he was in Nigeria on the date the document was allegedly executed.
His lawyers argue that “the most likely explanation” is that an electronic copy of his signature was inserted into the document without his knowledge or consent.
The filing also questions the relationship between Sittie and Azad Cola, head of Cola Holdings.
It alleges that Sittie worked directly for Cola, making arrangements for his visas and accommodation. The Times reported that it was unable to reach Sittie for comment.
Bediako also cited a Rolex watch allegedly given to Sittie by Cola in the spring of 2018.
Although he does not describe the gift as a bribe, Bediako’s filing presents it as evidence of a relationship that he believes could have compromised his former assistant’s independence.
The businessman is asking the London court to set aside the January 2025 judgment and award him compensation for losses he says he has suffered.
Cola Holdings has rejected the allegations. Its representative, Lawrence Cartier, said the company “categorically denies the claims made” and would submit “a comprehensive defence”.
The dispute will require the court to consider Bediako’s challenge to the authenticity of the indemnity document and the circumstances under which it was allegedly signed.
