2021
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
This appeal arises from a dispute between a bank (the 1st Appellant) and its branch manager (the 2nd Appellant) on one side, and judgment debtors (the Respondents) on the other, over a compromised consent judgment and sale of an attached hotel in Dichemso, Kumasi. After the High Court originally set the reserve price at GH₵1,320,000, the parties agreed to reduce it to GH₵1,000,000, with the bank agreeing to accept GH₵550,000 in full settlement. The property was sold, but the bank withdrew GH₵798,958 from the proceeds, leading the Respondents to sue for deceit and recovery of GH₵248,958. The trial court found for the Respondents. On appeal, Asiedu JA, with Domakyaareh JA (Presiding) and Poku‑Acheampong JA concurring, held that consent judgments may be compromised by mutual agreement, the alleged 31 October deadline was illogical and unproven, the bank’s nondisclosure amounted to deceit, and the branch manager was improperly joined. The judgment was affirmed against the bank, the manager was struck out, and costs were awarded.
ASIEDU, JA.
My lords, this appeal is against the judgment of the High Court, Commercial Division, Kumasi delivered on the 17th day of July 2019. The Plaintiffs/Respondents (hereinafter called the Respondents), on the 30th day of April 2014, issued a writ of summons against the Defendants/Appellants (hereinafter referred to as the Appellants) for:
a. A declaration that the Defendants obtained by deceit, the consent of the Plaintiffs to a variation of the Reserve Price from One Million Three Hundred and Twenty Thousand Cedis to One Million Cedis.
b. An order from this court against the Defendants for the payment or refund of an amount of Two Hundred and Forty-Eight Thousand Nine Hundred and Fifty Cedis (GH₵248,950) being Plaintiffs’ share of the proceeds from the sale of 1st Defendant’s (sic) Hotel by auction.
c. Interest on the amount from 1st April 2014 till date of final payment.
d. Damages for deceit.
After the hearing of the matter, the learned trial Judge entered judgment in favour of the Respondents and against the Appellants. Dissatisfied therefore, the Appellants filed the instant appeal on the 24th July 2019 for “an order setting aside the judgment of the Learned Trial Judge” on the grounds that:
a. The judgment of the Learned Trial Judge is against the weight of evidence.
b. The learned trial Judge erred in law when he concluded that Plaintiffs/Respondents are entitled to recover an amount of GH₵248,950.00 together (sic) interest and cost from Defendants/Appellants.
c. The learned trial Judge misdirected himself and erred in law when he overlooked the testimonies and written submission of Defendants/Appellants, including key points of law.
d. The learned trial Judge misdirected himself and erred in law when he concluded that Defendants/Appellants are liable to Plaintiffs/Respondents for tortious breach or deceit.
e. The learned trial Judge misdirected himself and erred in law when he entered judgment against the 2nd Defendant/Appellant, to be jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiffs/Respondents.
f. Additional grounds will be filed upon receipt of the records of proceedings and judgment.
It must be placed on record that the Appellants did not file any Additional Grounds of appeal and hence, the Written Submissions of the Appellants was confined to the Grounds of Appeal indicated on the Notice of Appeal as set out above. We have decided to discuss the first three Grounds of Appeal together. These are that:
a. The judgment of the