- Judgement Debt Row Escalates as First Atlantic Bank Replies Kenpong Travel’s Lawyers
First Atlantic Bank has defended its decision to pursue liquidation proceedings against Kenpong Travel and Tours Limited over a judgment debt, insisting that the High Court judgment against the travel company remains enforceable unless stayed or set aside by the Court of Appeal.
In a sharply worded legal response, Kwame Boafo Akufo of Kwame Akufo & Co. Unlimited, counsel for First Atlantic Bank, said the bank was entitled to proceed with execution after several applications for stay of execution filed by lawyers for Kenpong Travel were dismissed.
The response adds a new layer to a corporate debt dispute that has already drawn public attention because it involves one of Ghana’s best-known travel operators and a banking institution seeking to enforce a court judgment through liquidation proceedings.
NorvanReports had earlier reported that Kenpong Travel and Tours Limited was facing a winding-up petition at the Commercial Division of the High Court in Accra over an alleged unpaid judgment debt of GH¢2.55 million. That report stated that the petition, filed by First Atlantic Bank Limited, sought the official winding up of Kenpong Travel under the Corporate Insolvency and Restructuring Act, 2020, Act 1015, on grounds that the company was allegedly unable to pay its debts.
A subsequent NorvanReports publication carried the response of lawyers for Kenpong Travel, who rejected the liquidation petition and argued that the GH¢2.50 million debt was the subject of a pending appeal. That report also noted that Kenpong’s lawyers had challenged the timing and motivation of the petition, insisting that the winding-up move was premature while the appeal remained pending.
The latest letter from First Atlantic Bank’s counsel directly responds to that position. In the document, Mr Akufo states plainly: “I act for First Atlantic Bank.” He says the bank’s attention had been drawn to a press release reportedly authored by Samuel Atta Akyea Esq. on June 24, 2026, and that he had been instructed to respond.
The heart of his response is that the judgment creditor is not barred from enforcement merely because the judgment debtor has taken steps in appeal or objected publicly to the liquidation process. According to the letter, the dispute traces back to Suit No. CM/BFS/1191/2019, involving First Atlantic Bank Limited, Kenpong Travel and Tours Limited, Kennedy Agyapong and others.
Mr Akufo’s position is that following the judgment against Kenpong Travel and Tours Limited, several applications for stay of execution were filed by the company’s lawyer but dismissed. The letter says those applications were “fluently dismissed,” a phrase likely to attract attention both for its legal meaning and its unmistakably combative tone.
In the absence of a stay of execution, he said, the bank elected to pursue what he described as the “precise and useful option” of executing the judgment through a petition for liquidation. He added that the client he serves is entitled to that remedy.
The legal implication is significant. A pending appeal, by itself, does not always stop enforcement of a judgment. In many cases, what matters is whether a competent court has granted a stay of execution. First Atlantic Bank’s counsel is therefore arguing that unless there is an order staying execution, the bank is legally entitled to proceed.
Mr Akufo stated that the High Court judgment “remains executable unless stayed or set aside” by the Court of Appeal.
That sentence now becomes central to the dispute. Kenpong Travel’s lawyers, as captured in NorvanReports’ earlier publication, argue that the debt is under appeal and that the winding-up petition is premature. First Atlantic Bank’s lawyer is effectively saying the existence of an appeal does not suspend the bank’s right to enforce the judgment in the absence of a stay.
The dispute therefore turns on a narrow but consequential legal question: does Kenpong Travel have any subsisting order stopping execution of the judgment? If not, First Atlantic Bank’s position is that it is free to pursue enforcement, including through liquidation proceedings.
The matter is not merely procedural. Liquidation is one of the most serious remedies that can be pursued against a company. It moves a debt dispute beyond ordinary recovery and into the territory of corporate survival. If granted, a winding-up order could affect the company’s operations, reputation, assets, creditors, customers and contractual relationships.
That is why the case has attracted wider business interest. Kenpong Travel is not an obscure debtor. It is a public-facing travel brand associated with organised supporter travel, international tournaments and large-scale travel logistics. NorvanReports’ earlier coverage noted that the World Cup travel market is built on trust because customers often pay ahead for flights, accommodation, tickets, transport and related services.
For First Atlantic Bank, however, the matter appears to be one of enforcing a judgment debt it says remains unpaid. NorvanReports’ earlier report on the petition stated that the bank was seeking to recover GH¢2,549,969.28, together with interest and costs. The bank’s petition also sought the winding up of Kenpong Travel, the realisation of the company’s assets to satisfy the judgment debt, and orders restraining the company’s directors from interfering with or clogging the assets pending final determination.
The new letter seeks to push back against Kenpong Travel’s public defence by framing the liquidation petition not as reputational aggression, but as a lawful enforcement step flowing from a subsisting judgment.
Mr Akufo also rejected what he considered an attempt by the opposing side to generate public sympathy around the matter. He accused his learned senior of trying to “manufacture a moral panic” by claiming that Kenpong Travel had been defamed.
That language shows the dispute is now being fought on two fronts: in court and in the court of public opinion. Kenpong Travel’s lawyers have argued that the publication of the winding-up petition damaged the company’s reputation and business interests, especially given its World Cup-related operations. First Atlantic Bank’s lawyer is now replying that the issue is not defamation, but an enforceable debt arising from a High Court judgment.
The letter is also careful to anchor the bank’s position in the absence of a stay. That is likely to be the point First Atlantic Bank will rely on if the matter proceeds further: that a judgment creditor should not be prevented from enforcing a judgment unless the appellate court or another competent court has restrained enforcement.
Still, the reputational implications remain real. A winding-up petition can place a business under public scrutiny even before the court determines whether liquidation is justified. For a travel company, public confidence is a commercial asset. For a bank, the ability to enforce judgments is also a critical part of credit discipline.
This makes the case thought-provoking beyond the identities of the parties. It raises broader questions about corporate debt recovery in Ghana: when does legitimate enforcement become reputationally damaging? When does an appeal genuinely protect a debtor from execution? And how should public-facing companies balance litigation strategy with the need to preserve confidence among customers, creditors and partners?
It also raises a question for lenders. If a bank secures judgment but is unable to recover for years because of repeated applications and procedural manoeuvres, what remedies should remain available? Conversely, if a company believes the judgment is flawed and under appeal, how should the legal system prevent enforcement steps that could destroy the company before the appeal is heard?
For now, First Atlantic Bank’s position is direct: the judgment stands, the stay applications failed, and the liquidation petition is a lawful enforcement option. Kenpong Travel’s position, as previously reported by NorvanReports, is that the alleged debt is still under appeal and that the winding-up petition is premature.
The matter now appears likely to depend less on public statements and more on what the courts decide about the judgment, the appeal, the liquidation petition and any request to restrain enforcement.
Until then, the dispute remains a high-stakes test of how Ghana’s courts balance debt enforcement, corporate survival and reputational risk in cases involving public-facing businesses.
For First Atlantic Bank, it is about recovering a judgment debt. For Kenpong Travel, it is about preventing a liquidation process that could threaten its commercial standing. For the wider market, the case is a reminder that in credit disputes, the question is often not only who owes what, but whether the law allows a creditor to act before every appeal has run its course.
