This paper has in its possession a document regarding Mutual Benefits Assurance Company (MBAC), in which it requested a settlement of its financial obligation of $11,226,573.85 to Bea Mountain Mining Company (BMMC). Meanwhile, the insurance company has also initiated a court action for prohibition.
Last week, the Commercial Court issued a Writ of Execution due to MBAC’s failure to settle the amount of $11,226,573.85. A leaked letter from MBAC’s lawyer addressed to BMMC indicated a desire to engage in discussions for an amicable resolution of the case. Given the substantial amount in question, which could jeopardize MBAC’s financial stability if paid in full, the company seeks dialogue—a move some legal experts consider prudent.
In a letter dated July 12, 2025, and signed by Cllr. Aloysius Teah Jappah, Legal Counsel for MBAC, the company reiterated its commitment to resolving the ongoing disputes amicably. The letter stated: “I write on behalf of Mutual Benefits Assurance Company to confirm our continued commitment to an amicable resolution of the matters presently in dispute between our institutions. ”It further explained, “In line with public policy favoring negotiated settlements, Mutual has authorized its designated Board members and senior management to join legal counsel in the next phase of discussions.” The letter emphasizes the seriousness with which MBAC approaches this matter and its desire for a constructive outcome.
It is important to recall that last week, the Commercial Court ordered a Writ of Execution to seize and sell the land, goods, and chattels of MBAC. If the movable assets are insufficient to cover the full amount of $11,226,573.85, the writ allows for the seizure of the company’s real estate properties. This ruling, which authorized the Writ of Execution, was signed by His Honor Judge Chan-Chan A. Paegar.
This legal action stems from a commercial lawsuit filed by BMMC, represented by General Manager Hall Ozdemir, over MBAC’s alleged failure to meet its financial obligations arising from a contractual relationship between the two companies. Bea Mountain Mining Corporation (BMMC), as the Respondent, instituted an action of debt against MBAC to enforce payment based on contractual obligations specified in four bond instruments issued by MBAC in favor of BMMC.
On April 27, 2022, the Commercial Court entered a judgment in favor of BMMC for $9,847,604.28, which the court determined MBAC owed as a matter of law. The Informant subsequently excepted the final ruling of the lower court and announced an appeal to the Honorable Supreme Court for its October Term, A.D. 2022. On May 18, 2022, the Informant filed its Bill of Exceptions, which was approved, leading to the issuance of the Court’s Bill of Costs and the opening of an escrow account for the judgment sum. The lower court retained limited jurisdiction for purposes related to perfecting the appeal. On May 28, 2022, Guaranty Trust Bank notified the court that an account for Bea Mountain vs. Mutual Benefits Assurance Company had been opened, and the Informant was ordered to deposit the judgment amount.
Unexpectedly, the Informant abandoned its appeal without notice and filed a petition for a writ of prohibition. The Chambers Justice, Chief Justice Sie-A-Nyene G. Yuoh, issued an Alternative Writ, which was later quashed. The Informant then announced an appeal to the full bench. On January 25, 2023, the Honorable Supreme Court, in Mutual Benefits Assurance Company v. Her Honor Eva Mappy Morgan et al., ruled that the Informant could not replace its appeal process with a writ of prohibition after filing its accepted Bill of Exceptions, which had ousted the trial court’s jurisdiction.
