JUDGMENT OF BROBBEY J.
This is an action by the plaintiff for two sums being ¢2 million and US$3 million. In the alternative he claims ¢465 million. The action is grounded on simple contract for money had and received but not returned or refunded.
The plaintiff’s case is that he worked for about seventeen years, commencing from about 1969 to June 1986, in a company called Irani Brothers and Others. In that company, the plaintiff worked variously as a canvasser, sales manager and factory manager. The defendant is an executive chairman of that company. The plaintiff averred that even before he started working for the company he had known the defendant personally.
While working for the company, he and the defendant developed quite an intimate and well-nigh confidential relationship. Consequent upon this special relationship, the defendant made liberal allocations of flour to the plaintiff to sell. It is part of the case of the plaintiff that the defendant personally directed and indeed dictated the prices at which the flour should be sold. Invariably the defendant's prices were well above the prevailing controlled prices. Immense profits were thereby made which the plaintiff and the defendant shared evenly between them.
In all, the plaintiff claimed to have accumulated ¢465 million between 1981 and June 1984. Some time in June 1984 the plaintiff alleged that the defendant, aware of raids by soldiers in the house of the plaintiff in 1979 and frequent arrests of the plaintiff, advised the plaintiff as to the safety of his moneys. The advice was to the effect that the plaintiff should make available to the defendant moneys he had so that the defendant would bank them overseas on behalf of the plaintiff. According to the plaintiff, the defendant proffered the advice ostensibly to safeguard the moneys of the plaintiff.
Obviously induced by the specious attraction of the advice and the paternalistic attitude of the defendant, the plaintiff produced the moneys he then had which totalled ¢465 million. The moneys were changed at what has been notoriously dubbed in this country as the "black market" until US$3 million were realised. The architect for that change of the cedis into dollars was one Issah whom the plaintiff described as well known to the defendant in connection with such money changing transactions.
Of the cedis given to Issah, ¢2 million was not changed and that, together with the U.S.$3 million, were handed to the defendant in his own residence at
