DAVID NATHANIEL WILSON vs UMB INVESTMENT HOLDING LIMITED

Plaintiff claims against Defendant the following reliefs:

a. An order for the payment of the outstanding amount of One Hundred and Fifty-Eight Thousand, Four Hundred and Seventy-Five Ghana Cedis, Sixty-Three Pesewas (GH¢158,475.63) being the remaining balance which Defendant owes Plaintiff.

b. An order at the Defendant for recovery of interest on the said amount as stated in relief (a) above from September, 2020 at the prevailing bank rate till date of final payment.

c. General damages.

d. Costs including Solicitor’s fees

e. And any other reliefs this Court deems fit.

PLAINTIFF’S CASE

Plaintiff’s case is that on 14th April 2020, he invested an amount of Three Hundred and Seventy Thousand, Four Hundred and Nine Ghana Cedis, Nineteen Pesewas (GH¢370,409.19) for a 90-day period; which on 14th July, 2020 matured with returns of Fourteen Thousand, One Hundred and Twenty-Nine Ghana Cedis, Thirty-Four Pesewas (GHC14,129.34).

That after the maturity of the said investment, he took an amount of Twenty-Five Thousand Ghana Cedis (GH¢25,000.00) out of the total maturity value; and decided after the last maturity date to discontinue the said investment.

When he requested for the money, Defendant paid him a total amount of Two Hundred and One Thousand and Sixty-Two Ghana Cedis, Ninety Pesewas (GH¢201,062.90) out of the total amount of Three Hundred and Fifty-Nine Thousand, Five Hundred and Thirty-Eight Ghana Cedis, Fifty-Three Pesewas (GHC359,538.53); leaving an outstanding amount of One Hundred and Fifty-Eight Thousand, Four Hundred and Seventy-Five Ghana Cedis, Sixty-Three Pesewas (GH¢158,475.63) which Defendant has refused to pay.

DEFENDANT’S CASE

Defendant’s case is that Plaintiff made Four (4) different fund placements totaling Seven Hundred Five Thousand Ghana Cedis (GH¢705,000.00) with Defendant; which amount was invested in investment products with Defendant’s Counterparties.

That on 16th August 2019, the Bank of Ghana revoked the licenses of Defendant’s Counterparties and appointed a Receiver in their stead.

The result being that from the date of revocation of licenses and appointment of the Receiver for the clients of the Counterparties, investments held with the said Counterparties ceased to run and became vested in the said Receiver; who has to validate all claims before payments are made to Claimants.

That despite this, Defendant (which had not set its computer system to stop recording the target interest from 16th August, 2019) continued to m