GBEWAA PETROCHEMICALS v. STANBIC BANK GH. LTD & ANOTHER

Baffour J.A:

The propriety of a declaration by the court below to void a Notice issued by the 2nd Defendant/Appellant as well as the extent of the application of the audi alterem partem rule of natural justice are the main issues that come to the fore for consideration in this appeal. The Plaintiff had been a longtime customer of Stanbic Bank, 1st Defendant for short, since 2007. Without what he claims to be notice to him, a report was made to Bank of Ghana, 2nd Defendant, that he had issued at least three consecutive dud cheques. Based on the report from 1st Defendant, the 2nd Defendant ordered sanctions to be applied to him. Circulars were dispatched to all commercial banks not to allow Plaintiff to operate account or obtain any facility or enjoy any banking services. The sanctions were reversed after 1st Defendant had written to 2nd Defendant to reverse same. To Plaintiff the sanctions brought untold hardship, injury and financial loss to him and that the imposition of sanctions without an opportunity for him to have been heard was wrongful and against the rules of natural justice. For the sake of convenience, the parties would be referred to by their designation at the trial court. Accordingly, Plaintiff sought in his writ the following reliefs:

a. A declaration that Plaintiff has wrongfully and unjustly been sanctioned without any notice or hearing.

b. General damages of Gh₵1,000.000.00.

c. Cost.

1st Defendant in its defence posited that it only complied with the directive from the regulator of the banking industry being the 2nd Defendant. That under a specific Bank of Ghana Notice No. BG/GOV/SEC/2005/5 dated 27th June, 2005, it was under a duty to inform the 2nd Defendant of any customer who had issued dud cheques on three occasions. Further that Plaintiff between 23rd October 2009 to 11th March, 2010 did issue five dud cheques. And with the Notice given it [1st Defendant] not providing any avenue for the Plaintiff to be informed prior to the report to 2nd Defendant, it was not liable for the claims of the Plaintiff.

2nd Defendant on the other hand, noted that it was mandated by law to regulate and supervise banks to ensure safety, soundness and stability in the banking industry by way of notices issued to the general public and banks. That apart from the criminal sanctions against the issuance of dud cheques, it announced further measures to contain the practice of the issuance of dud cheques in 1999 as contained in BOG/GOV/SEC/2005/5 which