An Accra High Court was recently presented with the question of whether a betting company can be sued with the aim of recovering funds if a company’s employee steals the company's mobile money funds and gambles it away on a betting site using the corporate merchant number to register.
This is the case of Gafat Consult Limited v Mobile Sport (MSport) & Benjamin Boateng, decided on 19th March 2026. Gafat Consult is an IT and mobile money vending company. It sent one of its employees, Benjamin Boateng, to the Ashanti Region to buy gold on its behalf.
Boateng was accused of taking GHS 400,000 sitting in Gafat's MTN Mobile Money Merchant account and placing it all on MSport's betting platform. To do this, he registered on MSport using Gafat's corporate merchant SIM, not his own personal number. MSport let him through.
Gafat went after Boateng and Msport on the basis that MSport had breached its own platform rules and the Gaming Commission's regulations by allowing a company merchant number to slip through its sign-up process.
MSport replied with two arguments. One, it had done its KYC and verified Boateng's identity, sent him an OTP, he entered it correctly, all standard procedure.
Secondly, the actual deposits were processed by a third-party mobile money platform outside MSport's control, so whatever went wrong over there was not MSport's problem. The court rejected both arguments.
This was mainly because of Msports own witness. The operations manager admitted under cross-examination that MSport's platform rules require a personal phone number for registration, that a company number cannot be used, and most fatally that their system was configured to tell the difference between a personal and a corporate number.
The court reasoned that if the system is supposed to catch corporate numbers and it missed one, that is MSport’s failure, not the customer's. The court also caught an inconsistency between two of MSport's own documents, one claimed the mobile number had been verified as Boateng's personal detail, the other, a letter to the Ghana Police, listed everything that had been verified and quietly left the number out.
On the third-party argument, MSport's representative never actually testified about it at trial and it only remained in the pleadings. The court reminded everyone of the basic rule: pleadings are not evidence. You cannot plead a fact and then sit on it. If you do not lead evidence, that fact does nothing for you.
There was also the matter of the Gaming Commission's own findings, tendered in evidence. The Commission noted that to register a merchant SIM, one must be a director or secretary of the company it belongs to. Boateng was neither. A proper verification would have surfaced that problem and shut the registration down before a single cedi moved.
On the money, Gafat claimed GHS 400,000 but could not clearly trace the full amount to that specific merchant number from its own evidence. What saved the day was MSport's own admission in its letter to the Ghana Police that GHS 364,847 had been credited to Boateng's account from that number. Since what a party admits does not need to be proved, the court pegged the award there.
MSport was ordered to pay GHS 364,847, interest running from August 2022, and costs of GHS 40,000.
@QuofiTaylor@eddie_wrt Firstly, are they any qualifications required to chair a committee in parliament? If so kindly let me know the qualification to head that particular committee.
2. Why do you even refer to the party as an elite party? Is that supposed to mean only elites qualify to be inside?
@QuofiTaylor@eddie_wrt 🤣🤣the way you added lawmaker, is that supposed to be of any merit as to competence or what? Like we don’t know the caliber of some people who make it to parliament these days.