ABASS AMADU v. NOBLE DREAM FINANCIAL SERVICES
2015
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- HER LADYSHIP ANGELINA MENSAH-HOMIAH (MRS.) JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT
Areas of Law
- Banking and Finance Law
- Civil Procedure
- Contract Law
- Evidence Law
2015
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The Plaintiff sued the Defendant financial institution for failing to return his GH¢20,000.00 principal and accrued interest after reinvesting it on the same terms. The Defendant denied having dealings with the Plaintiff. The court, in the Defendant's absence, proceeded under the High Court Civil Procedure Rules and allowed the Plaintiff to prove his case. Evidence provided confirmed the Plaintiff’s customer status and investments with the Defendant. Judgment was entered for the Plaintiff, awarding him GH¢22,100.00 plus interest from 01/07/2014 until final payment, and costs of GH¢1,000.00.
JUDGMENT
“Cash in savings accounts, short term CDs or money market deposits – is great for an emergency fund…” Suze Orman. Is this applicable to the Plaintiff herein who alleges that he has been deprived of his short term investment? An answer will be provided as the case unfolds.
The Plaintiff’s case is simple. He invested an amount of GHS¢20,000.00 in the Defendant Financial Institution for a period of three months with a fixed interest of GH¢2,100.00. Upon maturity; he withdrew his interest and reinvested the principal of GH¢20,000.00 on the same terms. This time round, the Defendant failed to pay the principal and accrued interest on the due date in spite of several promises to do so.
The Defendant put up its usual “customized” statement of defence to the effect that the Plaintiff has never been its customer and the Company is not indebted to him in any way. The Defendant also denied having any dealings whatsoever with the Plaintiff.
These are the issues to be determined by the court:
Whether or not the Plaintiff is a customer of the Defendant financial institution?
Whether or not the Plaintiff invested GH¢20,000.00 in the Defendant’s institution?
Whether or not the Plaintiff is entitled to his claim?
As to be expected, the Defendant and its lawyer who were aware of the court date failed to show up for the trial. Thus, the court was compelled to proceed with the trial under order 36 rule 1 (2) (a) of the (High Court Civil Procedure) Rules, 2004, C.I. 47. The rule states as follows:
Rule (1) (2) where an action is called for trial and a party fails to attend, the trial judge may:
Where the Plaintiff attends and the defendant fails to attend, dismiss the counterclaim, if any, and allow the plaintiff to prove the claim.
Consequently, when the Defendant’s representative and counsel with full knowledge of the trial, elected not to come to court on 25/03/2015, the Plaintiff was allowed to prove his case. As a student of KNUST who was desirous of saving his money, the Plaintiff said he opened an account at the Ahodwo Branch of Noble Dream Financial Services where he deposited an amount of GH¢20,000.00. He was issued with pay-in-slip (exhibit A). He also tendered an investment certificate in respect of his account as exhibit B.
Concluding, the Plaintiff maintained his position that as a customer of the bank, he has had several dealings with the institution and that on 06/04/2014, he received a phone call to join a meeting which management held with