E& E PLATINUM INVESTMENTS VS SIC INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
2016
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- HIS LORDSHIP JUSTICE JEROME NOBLE- NKRUMAH
Areas of Law
- Contract Law
- Evidence Law
2016
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The case involved the plaintiff seeking recovery under a guarantee bond after T7 Enterprise defaulted on an investment agreement. The defendant argued fraud and lack of proof of the plaintiff’s investment. The court dismissed the fraud allegations due to lack of evidence and held the defendant liable under the terms of the bond. The court awarded the plaintiff USD 40,000 plus interest and legal costs.
The plaintiff has sued the defendant for a. An order for the recovery of the sum of USD 40, 000. 00, being the principal amount guaranteed by the defendant to pay to the plaintiff under Guarantee Bond number P/120/04/4120/2013/52 b. Interest on the amount stated in relief [a] at a return of 5% per week commencing from 13th day of September 2013 until the final day of payment pursuant to the terms of INVESTMENT CONTRACT AGREEMENT ON AU METAL [GOLD] TRADE dated 10th July2013 executed between the plaintiff and T7 Enterprise.
c. Costs including legal fees The defendant in resisting the plaintiffs claim has pleaded fraud.
The plaintiff’s case is that sometime in about June 2013 it was approached by oneEmmanuel Timothy Narteh Ayiku who was trading under the name and style of T7Enterprise with a business proposal requesting of the plaintiff to invest an amount ofUSD40, 000. 00 in its gold trading business.
According to plaintiff it requested T7Enterprise to furnish it with a third party guarantee to secure the investment in view of therisks involved and this led T7 Enterprise to request the issue of a guarantee bond by thedefendant in favour of the plaintiff and thus guarantee bond number P/120/04/4120 wasborn.
By this bond the plaintiff says the defendant under took to be responsible to it forthe payment of the principal sum of USD40, 000. 00 together with any and all interestthereon to be paid in full without cavil or argument upon the first written demand by theplaintiff.
Based on this the plaintiff says it entered into the agreement with T7 Enterprisewho begun making payments on the return on investment when they fell due until 13thSeptember 2013 when it stopped making payments compelling it to call in the bond.
Plaintiff says the defendant has refused to pay up.
The defendant on its part admits Emmanuel Timothy Narteh Ayiku applied to it for aguarantee bond and same was issued to guarantee proposed loan to T7 Enterprise by thePlaintiff in the sum of USD40, 000. 00. Defendant says subsequently it was informed that Timothy Ayiku could not be traced and then some time in October 2013, Plaintiff wroteto demand weekly interest of USD 2, 000. 00 adding that the Enterprise had paid weeklyprofits for 30th August 2013, 6th and 13th September 2013 and that payments forSeptember 20th and 27th, 4th, 11th, and 18th October 2013 were outstanding.
Defendantsays it got suspicious when cheque for payment of the USD40, 000. 00 indicated GHC80, 000. 00 instead and