Accra: An Accra High Court has adjourned a trial involving Dram Oil and Trading Limited and Deloitte and Touche after lawyers for Deloitte raised objections to certain paragraphs of the Witness Statement of Dram's first witness. Counsel for Deloitte, Mr. Ace Ankomah, asked the court to strike out some twenty paragraphs in the Witness Statement, arguing that the narrations were not formally stated in the initial court documents filed by Dram's lawyers.
According to Ghana News Agency, lawyers for Dram Oil and Trading Limited, led by Gaspar Lyle Nii-Aponsah, had begun submitting legal arguments against the objections raised by Deloitte's lawyers when the case was adjourned to October 2025. The case at the Commercial Division of the High Court revolves around a multi-million-dollar petroleum transaction involving under-recovery payments owed to Dram.
Deloitte was appointed by the court to audit the books of Vihama Energy Limited, the second defendant, following a Judgment that under-recoveries received and withheld by Vihama Energy rightfully belonged to Dram. However, Dram claims that Deloitte's conduct during the audit process undermined its neutrality, fairness, and professional standards, causing injury to Dram.
Now, the globally renowned audit firm faces the challenge of addressing accusations of producing a misleading, procedurally flawed, and grossly negligent audit report in its court-appointed role after the Court Judgment had already settled those issues in favor of Dram. This raises serious questions about audit independence, fairness, and professional accountability.
Dram's lawyers strongly opposed Deloitte's move to strike out sections of the Witness Statement of their first witness, arguing that all the challenged evidence was based on clearly pleaded facts, and Deloitte's objections revealed discomfort with scrutiny of its conduct. They noted that their court filings alleged Deloitte's audit relied on a fabricated 'January 2012' cargo sale date, despite evidence showing sales commenced in March 2012.
They highlighted that the Witness Statement described a prior auditor unable to complete the engagement, a statement appearing in Dram's pleadings and directly denied in Deloitte's defense. Dram's lawyers alleged that Deloitte revised its audit report at least three times, with two earlier drafts aligning with the Court Judgment that Vihama was indebted to Dram.
They claimed the final version, which stated Dram was indebted to Vihama Energy and conflicted with the Judgment's findings, was filed in court without giving Dram the opportunity to respond, despite earlier drafts favoring Dram being shared with other parties for comment over several months.
The lawyers further alleged that a senior Deloitte partner informed Dram's financiers that Dram was expected to receive a positive balance from the audit, but this position was reversed in the final version. This representation was supported by email and telephone correspondence already pleaded.
'Dram's obligation to pay Deloitte's audit fees, as stated in the Engagement Letter and pleaded in the Statement of Claim, confirms that Deloitte was engaged directly by Dram and owed it a duty of care, which Deloitte denies,' they added. In their arguments, the lawyers relied on authorities from Ghana and England to demonstrate that witness statements are permitted to provide details beyond what is contained in the pleadings.
The High Court has adjourned the matter to October 2025 to allow for the continuation of the legal arguments on the objections to the paragraphs in the Witness Statement before the trial commences.
