DANIEL FRIMPONG BOADU v. NOBLE DREAM FINANCIAL SERVICES

JUDGMENT

This judgment is in respect of a liquidated claim of GH¢24,420.50 and interest thereon made by the Plaintiff against the Defendant herein.

Three issues were set down for the trial. These are:

Whether or not the Plaintiff is a customer of the Defendant Financial Institution? Whether or not the Plaintiff invested GH¢24, 420.00 in the Defendant’s institution? Whether or not the Plaintiff is entitled to his claim.

The Plaintiff’s case in respect of which he gave evidence in court is that he opened an investment account with the Defendant and the terms were embodied in an investment certificate (exhibit A). According to him, the amount invested was GH¢22,100.00, the agreed interest rate was 10.5% and the total amount payable at the maturity date is GH¢24,420.50. The Defendant further testified that he has a contract with the Plaintiff that is why he has an investment certificate but the Defendant has refused to pay him despite repeated demands.

The Defendant filed a statement of defence on 6/11/14 and alleged that the Plaintiff has never been its customer and the Company is not indebted to him in any way. However, the Defendant and its lawyer failed to participate in the trial by their failure to attend court even though they were present in court when the hearing date was fixed. Under the circumstance, 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. Under the said rule, the court has a discretion to hear a Plaintiff’s case when the Defendant fails to show up in court.

Without much ado, I will determine the first issue as to whether or not the Plaintiff is a customer of the Defendant?

I have had opportunity to decide on who a customer of a bank is in a couple of cases involving Noble Dream Financial Services. The first of these cases was Ampofo Twumasi v Noble Dream Financial Services suit number BFS 116/2015, Commercial court Kumasi 13/03/2015. In that case, I reviewed the position of the English Courts on the definition of a “customer” of a Bank. Two cases were discussed at length in the Ampofo Twumasi case, namely, Commissioner of Taxation v English, Scottish and Australian Bank Ltd (1920) AC 683 and Woods v Martins Bank Ltd (1959) 1 QB 55 where their Lordships defined who a customer of a Bank is. I agreed with Lord Dunedin’s statement in the Commissioners of Taxation case (supra) at page 687 thus:

“The word ‘customer’ signifies a relationship in which duratio