AKOMEA KYEREMATENG v. NOBLE DREAM MICRO FINANCE
2015
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- HER LADYSHIP ANGELINA MENSAH-HOMIAH (MRS.) JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT
Areas of Law
- Contract Law
- Evidence Law
- Corporate Law
2015
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The Plaintiff invested a total of GH¢51,500.00 with the Defendant under an account reference number and received corresponding certificates. The Defendant denied having the Plaintiff as a customer. The burden of proof rested on the Plaintiff to prove the investments were made. The Defendant did not present any witnesses. Based on the Plaintiff's testimony and evidence, including investment certificates, the court found in favor of the Plaintiff. The court awarded the Plaintiff a total of GH¢56,750.00 with interest from 03/07/2014 and a cost of GH¢5,000.00.
JUDGMENT
The Plaintiff in his action is claiming the recovery of the sum of Fifty-Six Thousand, Seven Hundred and Fifty Ghana Cedis (GH ¢56,750.00) together with interest from the Defendant.
The Plaintiff's case is that he invested an amount of money with the Defendant with Account Reference Number 20-240100503-01 but the Defendant has refused to pay the amount due on the maturity date which fell on 02/04/2014.
The Defendant put up its custom defence that the Plaintiff has never been its customer and as such, it is not indebted to him in any way.
The issues for consideration in this trial are set down below:
Whether or not the Plaintiff invested an amount of GH¢55, 250.00 in the Defendant Financial Institution?
Whether or not the Plaintiff is entitled to his claim.
As the case is in all civil suits, the evidential burden as well as the burden of persuasion of the first issue rests on the Plaintiff and he must prove his claim on the balance of probabilities in terms of sections 11(4) and 12 of the Evidence Act, 1975 N.R.C.D. 323 as follows:
Section 11 (4):
" In other circumstances the burden of producing evidence requires a party to produce sufficient evidence so that on all the evidence a reasonable mind could conclude that the existence of the fact was more probable than its non- existence."
Section 12
(1): “Except as otherwise provided by law, the burden of persuasion requires proof by preponderance of probabilities."
(2):" Preponderance of probabilities 'means that degree of certainty of belief in the mind of the tribunal of fact or the court by which it is convinced that the existence of a fact is more probable than its non-existence".
Having assumed this burden, the Plaintiff gave evidence that 09/12/2013, he invested an amount of GH¢1,500.00 with the Defendant. Subsequently, he invested GH¢50,000.00 with the same Defendant Company and was issued with investment certificates. As regards the first investment, the Plaintiff said the maturity date was 10/05/2014. He gave the second maturity date for the GH¢ 50,000.00 investment as 02/07/2014. According to him, both investments attracted an agreed interest of 10.5% and the total amount payable to him inclusive of interest is GH¢ 56, 750.00. He tendered in evidence two investment certificates in support of his claims. These are exhibits A and A1. The Plaintiff further testified that on the maturity dates, he went to the Defendant who explained that the Company was having some challenges and wo