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
2016
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The Plaintiff successfully proved that he invested in the Defendant's products and that the Defendant failed to repay the investments as agreed, amounting to a breach of contract. The court awarded the Plaintiff the sum of GH49725.11 plus interest, nominal damages of GH1000, and costs of GH3000.
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