The Commercial Division of the High Court, has no records indicating that top executives of BPI Bank, who should be cited for contempt following the change of name of BPI Bank to UT Bank, had been served. This was after Mr David Kujuadzi, counsel for the plaintiffs, enquired from the court to check whether respondents had been served. When the court enquired from the respondents present in court namely, Prince Kofi Amoabeng, Captain Budu Koomson, Mrs Pearl Esua-Mensah, whether they had been served they replied in the negative. According to them they had also not authorised anyone to receive the application on their behalf. Mr Michael Atiboly one of the respondents was absent. The court therefore urged plaintiffs to make attempts to serve them adding that, if they had any difficulty or if respondents were being evasive, they should come to court to prove it so that the court would give them an alternative. The case was therefore adjourned to June 29. Eight people filed a suit at the High Court, Commercial Division, to cite top executives of BPI Bank, which changed to UT Bank for contempt. The Suit number ACC/4/09 named the plaintiffs as Alex Ashiabor and seven others while HOPACO SDM BHD and four others are defendants. It names the respondents as Prince Kofi Amoabeng, Captain Budu Koomson, Mrs Pearl Esua-Mensah and Mr Michael Atiboly as respondents. In an affidavit in support of the suit, Mr Ashiabor said on April 30, 2009, the plaintiffs filed an application on notice to restrain the defendants from taking any further steps towards changing the name of BPI Bank to UT Bank. The affidavit said the process was served on Captain Koomson, Mrs Esua-Mensah and Mr Atiboly on April 30. However, “in plain disregard and disrespect for the administration of justice”, the four defendants/respondents proceeded to ignore the process and went ahead to change all the colours and logo of BPI Bank to UT Bank”. It said: “On the 4th of May, the respondents herein in the full glare of the public officially launched the changing of name of BPI Bank to UT Bank.” The plaintiffs described this as “a smack in the face of the court and gross disregard for the authority and power of this court”. The plaintiffs said they believed the respondents were in contempt of court and must be ordered to purge their contempt. Source: GNA