Ghanaian businessman Nana Kwame Bediako, popularly known as Cheddar, has launched a fresh legal challenge against a $14.9 million judgment obtained against him by Cola Holdings Limited, alleging that a signature used to establish his liability under a loan indemnity agreement was not his.
In a new claim lodged before the High Court in London, Mr Bediako is disputing the authenticity of a deed of indemnity relied upon by Cola Holdings in securing the original judgment against him in January 2025.
The disputed document was presented as evidence that the businessman had agreed to guarantee 50 per cent of an $18 million loan obtained to finance the construction of No. 1 Oxford Street, a serviced apartment development in Accra.
However, in his latest legal filing, Mr Bediako maintains that the signature appearing on the deed, dated January 18, 2018, was not written or authorised by him. He further contends that he has no knowledge of how a signature bearing his name was placed on the document.
According to the court filing, the indemnity agreement was purportedly executed at his office in Accra and witnessed by his then executive assistant, Reginald Sittie. Mr Bediako, however, maintains that he was in Nigeria on the date the document was allegedly signed, raising questions about the circumstances surrounding its execution.
His legal representatives argue that the most plausible explanation is that an electronic reproduction of his signature was inserted into the document without his knowledge, approval or authorisation.
The fresh proceedings also raise questions about the relationship between Mr Sittie and Azad Cola, the principal figure behind Cola Holdings Limited.
Mr Bediako’s legal team alleges that the former executive assistant maintained direct professional dealings with Mr Cola, including arranging his visa applications and accommodation.
The filing further draws attention to an expensive gift allegedly presented to Mr Sittie by Mr Cola in the spring of 2018. The item, identified as a Rolex wristwatch, is cited by Mr Bediako as an indication of a relationship that he believes could have affected the independence of his former assistant.
Importantly, the businessman has not characterised the alleged gift as a bribe. Rather, his lawyers have raised it as part of the wider circumstances they believe warrant scrutiny concerning the preparation, witnessing and authenticity of the disputed indemnity agreement.
The Times, which reported on the legal dispute, indicated that it had been unable to obtain a response from Mr Sittie regarding the allegations.
Through the new proceedings, Mr Bediako is seeking to have the January 2025 judgment overturned and is also demanding compensation for the financial losses he claims to have suffered as a consequence of the ruling.
Cola Holdings Limited has strongly rejected the allegations through its representative, Lawrence Cartier, maintaining that the claims are unfounded.
The company stated that it “categorically denies the claims made” and intends to present “a comprehensive defence” in response to the fresh legal action.
The dispute therefore places the authenticity of the disputed indemnity document, the circumstances surrounding its purported execution and the respective responsibilities of the parties at the centre of a renewed legal battle in London.
The allegations have yet to be determined by the court, and the fresh proceedings do not, by themselves, invalidate the existing judgment. Mr Bediako’s challenge will have to be established through the legal process before any decision is reached on whether the earlier ruling should be set aside.
