FRANCIS K. BARIMA KUFFOUR v. NOBLE DREAM MICRO FINANCE LTD.
2016
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- ANGELINA MENSAH-HOMIAH (MRS.) JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT
Areas of Law
- Contract Law
- Evidence Law
- Civil Procedure
- Banking and Finance Law
2016
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
Justice Angelina Mensah-Homiah of the High Court determined a dispute arising from a microfinance investment relationship. The Plaintiff placed GH a220,000 with the Defendant Micro Finance Company on 27/12/2012 for 182 days at 18%, later rolling over the principal and accrued interest and topping up with GH a210,000, then adding GH a29,600 to reach GH a245,000 invested on 30/12/2013 at 10.50% for 91 days. The Defendant argued that the funds were invested in the Capital Market rather than its own products and failed to pay at maturity on 31/03/2014. The Defendant filed no witness statement and was absent, so the Court assessed only the Plaintiff a0 a0s witness statement and exhibits CD2 a0 a0CD4, found the investments were the Defendant a0 a0s products, and entered judgment for GH a249,725.11, prevailing-bank-rate interest, post-judgment interest, nominal damages of GH a21,000, and costs of GH a23,000.
JUDGMENT
This action for the recovery of the sum of GH¢ 49, 725.11 arose from a Micro Finance/Customer relationship whereby the Plaintiff allegedly invested his money with the Defendant for a specified period subject to terms. The Plaintiff is also asking for interest on the amount said to have been invested and damages for breach of contract.
In his statement of claim filed on 13/02/2015, the Plaintiff asserted that on 27/12/2012, he invested an amount of GH¢20,000.00 with the Defendant for a period of 182 days at an interest rate of 18% per investment period. On the maturity date of 27/06/2013, the Plaintiff averred that he rolled over the principal amount, accrued interest and topped the investment up with the sum of GH¢ 10,000.00. He also indicated that he added GH¢9,600.00 to the amount invested earlier and that brought his total investment to GH¢ 45,000.00. His case is that the Defendant failed to repay his money on the agreed terms upon maturity and has continuously refused to do so.
The Defence put up by the Defendant is that the Plaintiff made an informed decision to invest his money in the Capital Market but not in the Defendant's products. As such, the Defendant averred that it is not under any obligation to repay the Plaintiff's lost investments.
The main issue for determination is whether or not the Plaintiff invested in Defendant's Products or in the Capital Market.
To determine this issue, the court is enjoined to weigh the evidence adduced by both parties on the balance of probabilities and find whose case is deserving of a favourable verdict. This principle of proof in civil suits has its basis on sections 11(4) and 12 of the Evidence Act 1975, NRCD 323 which states as follows:
Sec. 11(4):
In other circumstances the burden of producing evidence requires a party to produce sufficient evidence which on the totality of the evidence, leads a reasonable mind to conclude that the existence of the fact was more probable than its non-existence.
Sec.12. Proof by a preponderance of the probabilities
(1) Except as otherwise provided by law, the burden of persuasion requires proof by a preponderance of the probabilities.
(2) “Preponderance of the probabilities” means that degree of certainty of belief in the mind of the tribunal of fact or the Court by which it is convinced that the existence of a fact is more probable than its non-existence.
In so doing, all the evidence on record must be considered, be it that of the Plaintiff or the Defe