DANIEL GIBSON DANSO v. INTECELL INVESTMENTS LTD and ORS
2019
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
- P. K. GYAESAYOR, JA (PRESIDING)
- A. LOVELACE-JOHNSON, JA
- CECILIA SOWAH, JA
Areas of Law
- Banking and Finance Law
- Contract Law
- Corporate Law
- Evidence Law
2019
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The plaintiff, a retired police officer, invested in an unlicensed financial institution operated by the defendants, who are found personally liable due to fraudulent conduct. Despite objections, the trial judge ruled in favor of the plaintiff, leading to an appeal which was dismissed by the Court of Appeal, affirming the High Court's judgment.
GYAESAYOR, JA
This is an appeal against the decision of the High Court, Accra dated 5th of March 2018.
In this judgment the plaintiff/respondent shall be called plaintiff whiles the appellants shall be called defendants.
The plaintiff is a retired police officer who invested an amount of Gh¢80,000 into an alleged financial institution belonging to 2nd to 4th defendants known as Intercell Financial Investment.
He was to be paid a monthly interest of Gh¢2,400 from 5th June 2011 to February 2012.
After some initial payment of the interest agreed upon, they ceased paying.
Plaintiff then applied for a return of half of his investment which amounted to Gh¢40,000 but they failed to pay.
He then reported the matter to police CID who found during their investigation that the defendants were not licensed to operate as a financial institution.
He therefore wrote to terminate the agreement.
As a result of police investigation the matter went to the Circuit Court who discharged the defendants on the grounds that this is a civil matter to be pursued in the civil courts and not in the Criminal Court.
Upon this decision of the Circuit Court, the plaintiff issued a writ in the High Court on 3rd November, 2017 claiming the following reliefs;
a. The amount of Eighty-eight Thousand Ghana Cedis (Gh¢88,000.00) being the sum of the plaintiff’s principal and accrued interest thereon.
b. Interest on the said sum from 5th July, 2012 to the day of final payment at the prevailing commercial bank rate.
c. Costs d. Any other relief(s) that this honourable court may deem fit.
The defendants entered appearance to the summons on 20th November 2017.
The 2nd to 4th defendants upon entering appearance proceeded to file a motion on notice to have their names struck out as defendant on the grounds that the contract has plaintiff as lender and the 1st defendant as borrower and that the defendants are not parties to the agreement.
They argued that they have been unnecessarily made parties to the suit and that the three defendants are distinct from the 1st defendant.
Overruling this objection, the learned trial judge found that the presence of all the defendants is necessary for the complete and final determination of the suit.
She relied on the exceptions laid down in the case of Morkor vrs Kumah [1999-2000] 1 GLR at 721.
The plaintiff applied for summary judgment against the defendants which was granted by the High Court on the grounds that the defendants have no defence to