AFARE APEADU DONKOR v. EDC STOCKBROKERAGE LTD. & ECOBANK GHANA LTD.
2015
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
- OWUSU M., J.A. (PRESIDING)
- ADUAMA OSEI, J.A.
- SOWAH, J.A
Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Contract Law
- Evidence Law
- Tort Law
2015
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The appeal arose from a High Court decision favoring the plaintiff in a dispute over shares held as collateral by the defendant bank. The trial court found the banks retention of the shares unlawful, ordering their return and awarding damages to the plaintiff. The appeal raised multiple grounds, including the weight of evidence, the existence of a lien, and the alleged fraudulent actions of the bank. The appellate court upheld the trial courts findings on most grounds, dismissing the appeal except for the fraud finding, which was overturned. The decision reaffirms principles around liens, the standard of proof for fraud, and the assessment of general damages.
SOWAH, J.A:
This is an appeal from the judgment of the High Court [Fast Track Division] Accra dated 12th July 2011, which entered judgment in favour of the plaintiff/respondent and dismissed the counterclaims of the defendants/appellants'.
Aggrieved by this judgment, the defendants/appellants filed separate grounds of appeal.
The 1st Defendant/Appellant’s grounds of appeal were as follows:
a. That the evidence is against the weight of the evidence.
b. That the conclusions reached by the Judge are defiance (sic) of logic and are so unreasonable or to amount to errors of law.
c. That additional grounds of appeal shall be filled upon receipt of the record.
The 2nd Defendant/Appellant’s grounds of appeal were as follows:
i. The decision was against the weight of the evidence.
ii. The learned trial Judge erred in concluding that since the loan granted to William Oppong-Bio by the 2nd defendant/appellant had been cancelled, the guarantor’s 18,120,000 shares given as security for the loan also had to be released to the guarantor despite the multiplicity of court actions brought and pending in respect of the share transaction for which the loan was taken and in respect of Manager’s cheques issued in relation to the share transaction.
iii. The learned trial Judge erred in his understanding of the vital issues before him by classifying the issue of whether or not the share transaction of the 27th day of May 2008 failed as ‘the most contentious issue’ and formed the basis of his entire decision on the issue. On the contrary the second defendant, who has been sued by Daniel Ofori in relation to the share transaction of 27th May, 2008 has always maintained, contrary to Daniel Ofori’s assertion that the trade failed. The issue as to whether or not the trade failed is the crux of the matter before the Commercial Division of the High Court in Daniel Ofori Vrs. Ecobank (Ghana) Limited and simplistic ruling on the matter when that very issue has undergone a seven months trial in the Commercial Court with a decision yet to be delivered. It was not even one of the issues set down by the parties for trial and could therefore not serve as the buttress to the learned trial Judge’s decision.
iv. The trial Judge erred in considering the cancellation of the loan as a vital issue upon which the plaintiff had led credible evidence to support his case. The 2nd defendant had never averred that the loan was not cancelled. On the contrary, the 2nd defendant has averred that