AMPOFO TWUMASI ANKRAH v. NOBLE DREAM FINANCIAL SERVICES
2015
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- Her Ladyship Angelina Mensah-Homiah (Mrs.)
Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Contract Law
- Evidence Law
- Banking and Finance Law
2015
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The Plaintiff sued the Defendant financial institution for the recovery of GH111, 500.00, representing investment deposits. The Defendant denied any customer relationship or debt owed to the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff proved his claims through documentary and oral evidence. The court found the Plaintiff to be a customer of the Defendant and thus owed the amounts claimed. The Plaintiff was awarded GH110, 500.00 plus interest from 22/06/2014 until full payment and GH1000.00 plus interest from 25/05/2014 until full payment, along with costs of GH8, 000.00.
JUDGMENT
The Plaintiff in this suit commenced an action against the Defendant for the recovery of the sum of GH¢111,500.00 and interest thereon.
It is the Plaintiff’s case that the amount being claimed represents the total investment deposits which he made with the Defendant financial institution, but the Defendant has refused to honour his requests for the withdrawal of the same.
The Defendant’s case is that the Plaintiff has never been its customer and the company does not owe him in any way.
The main issue for determination is whether or not the Defendant Financial Institution is indebted to the Plaintiff in the sum of GH¢111,500.00? To resolve this issue effectively, the court must first determine whether the Plaintiff invested or deposited any money in the Defendant Company and second, whether the Plaintiff is, or was, a customer of the Defendant.
Counsel for the Defendant who was present when a date was fixed for the trial to commence, failed to attend court on the scheduled date. Thus, the Plaintiff was allowed to proof his case under Order 36 rule (1) (2) (a) of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2004 C.I. 47. It reads:
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.
It is the duty of the Plaintiff to prove his case to the required standard in civil suits. That is, by the preponderance of the probabilities. See sections 11(4) and 12 of the Evidence Act, 1975 NRCD 323. The fact that the Defendant elected not to participate in this trial does not take away the Plaintiff’s burden of proof.
A case in point is Takoradi Flour Mills v Samir Faris (2005-2006) SCGLR 882 at 884 where the court held as follows (holding 5):
“ It is sufficient to state that this being a civil suit, the rules of evidence require that the plaintiff produces sufficient evidence to make out his claim on a preponderance of probabilities, as defined in section 12(2) of the Evidence Decree, 1975 ( NRCD 323). In assessing the balance of probabilities, all the evidence, be it that of the plaintiff or the defendant must be considered and the party in whose favour the balance tilts is the person whose case is the more probable of the rival versions and is deserving of a favourable verdict.”
In proving his case, the Plaintiff led oral evidence and also relied on documentary evidence. H