FRANCISCA POKU OPPONG v. NOBLE DREAM FINANCIAL SERVICES
2015
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- HER LADYSHIP ANGELINA MENSAH-HOMIAH (MRS.) JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT
Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Contract Law
- Evidence Law
2015
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
Noble Dream Financial Services Ltd was sued by the Plaintiff for recovering GH¢24,420.50, being the amount of her investment and accrued interest after the Defendant defaulted on maturity. The court had to consider if the Plaintiff was a customer and if she was entitled to the claim. The Defendant failed to appear in court, enabling the Plaintiff to present her evidence, including an investment certificate. The court concluded that the Plaintiff was a customer based on legal definitions and ruled she was entitled to the recovery of her investment plus interest, to be calculated at the prevailing bank rate.
JUDGMENT
Noble Dream Financial Services Ltd has been sued by the Plaintiff herein for the recovery of the sum of Twenty-Four Thousand, Four hundred and twenty Ghana Cedis, Fifty pesewas ( GH¢24, 420.50) being the investment made by the Plaintiff in the Defendant Company.
The Plaintiff’s case is concise. She invested an amount of GH¢ 22,100.00 for a period of 91 days at an interest rate of 10.5%. However, the Defendant failed to pay back her money upon maturity of the investment.
The Defendant also put up a terse defence to the effect that the Plaintiff has never been its customer. The Defendant denied any dealings whatsoever with the Plaintiff and stated that the company is not indebted to her.
For the determination of this case, two issues were set down for trial, namely, (i) Whether or not the Plaintiff is a customer of the Defendant Financial Institution? And (ii) whether or not the Plaintiff is entitled to her claim.
Counsel for the Defendant who was in court on 04/03/2015 when a date was fixed for the trial to commence on 23/03/2015, failed to attend court on the scheduled date. Thus, the Plaintiff was allowed to proof her case under Order 36 rule (1) (2) (a) of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2004 C.I. 47. It reads:
Rule (1) (2) where an action is called for trial and a party fails to attend, the trial judge may:
Where the Plaintiff attends and the defendant fails to attend, dismiss the counterclaim, if any, and allow the plaintiff to prove the claim.
As is always the case in all civil suits, it is the duty of a party who has made positive assertions which have been denied to lead evidence to prove his or her case by the preponderance of the probabilities. See sections 11(4) and 12 of the Evidence Act, 1975 NRCD 323. In the instant action, the Defendant elected not to participate in this trial but that does not imply that judgment be given in favour of the Plaintiff without convincing proof of her case. The Plaintiff must therefore prove her case as required by law.
In Takoradi Flour Mills v Samir Faris (2005-2006) SCGLR 882 at 884 the court held as follows (holding 5):
“ It is sufficient to state that this being a civil suit, the rules of evidence require that the plaintiff produces sufficient evidence to make out his claim on a preponderance of probabilities, as defined in section 12(2) of the Evidence Decree, 1975 ( NRCD 323). In assessing the balance of probabilities, all the evidence, be it that of the plaintiff or the defendan