GEORGE KOFI NTIM v. NOBLE DREAM FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD
2016
HIGH COURT
A.D 2016
CORAM
- ANGELINA MENSAH-HOMIAH (MRS.) JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT
Areas of Law
- Banking and Finance Law
- Evidence Law
- Civil Procedure
2016
HIGH COURT
A.D 2016
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The case concerns the recovery of funds invested by the plaintiff in a micro-finance company's time-deposit product called 'Noble Trust'. The plaintiff invested a total of GHS 13,000.00 at an interest rate of 10.5% for three months. After the maturity dates, the defendant failed to return the principal and interest. Denying any dealings with the plaintiff, the defendant accused him of taking advantage of its operational issues. The trial proceeded in the absence of the defendant, who failed to attend multiple hearings and file witness statements. The court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, establishing that he was indeed a customer of the defendant and entitled to recover the investment amount with interest and costs. The principles of burden of proof in civil cases, balance of probabilities, the definition of a 'customer' in a banking relationship, and the right to interest for delayed payments were reinforced.
JUDGMENT
This judgment is in respect of the recovery of monies said to have been invested in a fixed or time deposit product of the Defendant micro-finance company described as "Noble Trust".
The case of the Plaintiff is that he was induced by the numerous advertisements and marketing strategies of the Defendant company to deposit GHS 5,000.00 and GH¢ 8,000.00 on 19/12/2003 and 08/03 /2014 respectively at an agreed interest rate of 10.5% for three months. However, after the respective maturity dates and subsequent persistent demands, the defendant has failed to pay him the principal amounts invested totaling GH¢ 14, 365.00 plus the accrued interest.
In the statement of defence filed on 7/11/14, the Defendant company alleged that it has never had any dealings with the Plaintiff, he is not one of its customers and the company is not in any way indebted to him. The Defendant further alleged that the Plaintiff has taken advantage of its operational difficulties and misunderstanding with some of its customers to overreach the company, and unjustly enrich himself.
After a failed attempt at settlement, two main issues were set down for this trial. These are:
Whether or not the Plaintiff was Defendant's customer?
Whether or not the Plaintiff is entitled to his claim?
Both parties failed to comply with the orders for the filing of witness statements and were given extension of time to do so. The Plaintiff did comply with the second order and filed his witness statement on 29/05/2015, but the Defendant failed to do so even though the company was given a further extension of time. The lawyers appeared before the court for a case management conference on 17/07/2015 where counsel for the Defendant informed the court that they do not intend filing any witness statement. The case was then adjourned to 27/07/2015 at 11am for hearing but the trial could not commence on the said date. Counsel for the defendant was also absent without reason.
Eventually, 9/11/2016 was set as the hearing date with an order that a hearing notice be served on counsel for the Defendant. By an affidavit of service deposed by Kwabena Gyan, a senior bailiff attached to this court, a hearing notice was duly served on counsel for the Defendant on 24/10/2016. Neither the Defendant nor its lawyer came to court on 09/11/2016 and the court had no other alternative than to proceed to hear the case of the Plaintiff as provided for under Order 36 of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2004 C.I.