FRANCIS PREMPEH AGYEMANG v. NOBLE DREAM MICRO FINANCE
2015
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- HER LADYSHIP ANGELINA MENSAH-HOMIAH (MRS.) JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT
Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Commercial Law
- Banking and Finance Law
2015
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The Plaintiff sued the Defendant to recover GH¢23,878.00 invested in the Defendant company. The Defendant denied any business relationship. The Defendant's counsel failed to appear in court, allowing the Plaintiff to proceed with the case in their absence. The Plaintiff presented evidence that the investments expired, but the Defendant did not return the principal or interest. The court determined that the Plaintiff was a customer of the Defendant based on the evidence and held the Defendant liable for the claimed amount. The court awarded interest at the prevailing bank rate and costs to the Plaintiff.
JUDGMENT
On 26/09/2014, the Plaintiff herein instituted the instant action against the Defendant herein, to recover various sums of money which he had invested in the Defendant Company together with the accrued interest, post judgment interest and cost. Excluding the interest, the total amount being claimed is GH¢23,878.00. The Defendant denied liability to the Plaintiff’s claims on the basis that it had never conducted any business with him.
After unsuccessful attempts at settlement, two issues were set down for trial, namely:
1. Whether or not the Defendant owes the amount claimed by the Plaintiff?
2. Whether or not the Plaintiff is a customer of the Defendant Bank?
It is to be noticed that per the court’s records, counsel for the Defendant was duly served with hearing notices to attend court for the trial to commence but he failed to show up. This is evidenced by three affidavits of service sworn on 08/07/2015; 14/08/2015; and 01/09/2015.
Prior to that, the Defendant’s usual representative, Patience Forson, was in court on 12/03/2015 without the Company’s lawyer and she was informed to communicate the date for the next sitting to the Defendant’s lawyer. Strangely, after that date, Ms. Forson stopped coming to court.
With these series of events, the court had no option than to proceed with the case under Order 36 rule 1 (2) (a) of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 2004, C.I. 47. It states:
Rule (1) (2) where an action is called for trial and a party fails to attend, the trial judge may:
a. Where the Plaintiff attends and the Defendant fails to attend, dismiss the counterclaim, if any, and allow the Plaintiff to prove the claim.
On the basis of the rule, the Plaintiff was allowed to prove his claim on 12/10/2015. The Plaintiff gave a detailed account of his encounter with the Defendant over the period in issue. Following radio announcements in respect of the Defendant’s products, the Plaintiff said he went to the Defendant’s Asafo branch to make enquiries. Thereafter, he opted for the 91 days or three months package and was given investment certificates for each investment he made.
First, the Plaintiff invested GH¢17,000.00 on 10/12/2013 at an interest rate of 10.5% for 91 days (exhibits A & A1). Second, in January 2014, he invested GH¢2,901.50 at the same interest rate and duration (exhibit B). Third, an amount of GH¢1,709.00 was invested in February, 2014 for 91 days on the same terms (exhibit C).
Upon maturity of the 10/12/2013 inves