BEATRICE MENSAH TAYUI v. TLG CAPITAL PARTNERS (GHANA) LTD & ORS

HENRY A. KWOFIE (JA):

This an appeal against the judgment of the High Court Accra (Commercial Division) dated 18th July 2018.

In that judgment the High Court entered judgment in favour of the plaintiff as against the 1st, 2nd and 3rd defendants to recover the sum of US$6Million placed with the 1st defendant at the agreed interest rate as well as exchange losses the plaintiff will suffer due to the unlawful conversion of her fund from US Dollars to Ghana cedis. The trial judge however dismissed the plaintiff’s case as against the 4th defendant. She also awarded the 4th defendant general damages of GH¢200,000 and cost of GH¢50,000.00 as against the plaintiff.

Dissatisfied with the said judgment in relation to the 4th defendant the plaintiff/appellant herein after called the plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal against the judgment on the 16th of October 2019 on the following grounds:

GROUNDS OF APPEAL

i) The judgment of the court below is against the weight of the evidence at the trial.

ii) The Court below erred in its failure to give any or adequate consideration to and or examination of the plaintiff’s case against the 4th defendant

iii) The Court below erred in its assessment and application of the principles applicable to a knowing receipt claim.

iv) The Court below erred when it ignored the 4th defendant’s own pleading that it was aware of circumstances from which a trust could be inferred and held that at the time the 4th defendant received the funds in issue from Fidelity Bank it was not aware that the plaintiff had any trust relationship with the 1st defendant

v) The learned Court below erred when it ignored the fact that contrary to law the 4th defendant’s alleged security in the plaintiff’s funds had not been registered with the Collateral Registry of the Bank of Ghana.

vi) The Court below erred when it held that at the time the 4th defendant liquidated the funds in issue, it did so on the understanding that it had bought off 1st defendant’s loan from Fidelity and the 1st defendant then arranged for the funds to be placed in the account of the 3rd defendant with the 4th defendant; stating it did not appear that the 4th defendant had been the funds belonged to the plaintiff at all material times

vii) The Court below erred when it held that the 4th defendant was a bona fide purchaser for value without notice of the plaintiff’s interest in the said funds

viii) The Court below erred when it dismissed the plaintiff’s claim against the 4th defe