IGNATIUS EDEM KWAKU VS MENZGOLD GHANA LIMITED & ANOR.
April 9, 2019
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- HER LADYSHIP MRS. ANGELINA MENSAH-HOMIAH J.
Areas of Law
- Contract Law
- Corporate Law
- Evidence Law
- Civil Procedure
- Tort Law
April 9, 2019
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
A Ghana High Court, per Mrs. Angelina Mensah-Homiah J., adjudicated a dispute where a minister of religion, represented by his attorney Michael Nyadzi, invested in three gold trading agreements with a Ghanaian company led by CEO Nana Appiah Mensah, promising 10% monthly returns. Documentary evidence showed deposits on 29 December 2017 (19 pounds; GH₵38,000), 29 January 2018 (12 pounds; GH₵24,000), and 9 April 2018 (12 pounds; GH₵24,000). Payments ceased around August/September 2018 and the principal was not refunded. The court found the business model a Ponzi scheme, misrepresentation and fraud proven beyond reasonable doubt, and pierced the corporate veil to hold Nana Appiah Mensah jointly liable. On public policy, it refused to enforce the contracts, instead ordering restitution of principal with interest at the Bank of Ghana 91-day Treasury Bill rate, less returns already received, and awarded costs of GH¢5,000.
The Plaintiff is a Minister of Religion who invested with the 1st Defendant, a Company incorporated under the laws of Ghana, engaged in the business of sale and purchase of gold.
The 2nd Defendant is a Director, Shareholder and Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the 1st Defendant Company.
The parties are in Court because of the failure of the defendants to pay the agreed returns on the investments made by the Plaintiff as well as 1st Defendant’s inability to refund the monetary value of the various gold investments made.
By the endorsement on his writ of summons, the Plaintiff claims against the defendants jointly and severally as follows: a. Recovery of GH₵38, 000. 00 being the value of 19 pounds of gold deposited with the 1st Defendant b. Interest on the sum of GH₵38, 000. 00 from 29th December 2017 at the Commercial Bank rate till date of final payment c. Recovery of GH₵24, 000. 00 being the value of 12 pounds of gold deposited with the 1st Defendant d. Interest on the sum of GH₵24, 000. 00 from 29th January 2018 at the Commercial Bank rate till date of final payment.
e. Recovery of GH₵24, 000. 00 being the value of 12 pounds of gold deposited with 1st Defendant.
f. Interest on the sum of GH₵24, 000. 00 from April 2018 at the Commercial Bank rate till date of final payment.
g. General damages for breach of contract h. General damages for fraudulent misrepresentation.
i. Costs.
The Defendants entered appearance and caused a Statement of Defence to be filed on their behalf.
However, for failing to comply with the orders regarding filing of processes at the case management stage, their statement of defence was struck out on 8th February 2019 Order 32 r 7A(3) (b) of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 2004 C. I. 47 as inserted by the High Court(Civil Procedure Amendment Rules) 2014 C. I. 87. It reads: “Where a party has failed to comply with any of the directions given at a case management conference or a pretrial review or both, the Judge may make any of the following orders: (a) Strike out the action, if the non-complying party is a Plaintiff; (b) Strike out the defence and counterclaim as the case may be, if the non- complying party is a Defendant. ”That notwithstanding, Counsel for the Defendants was available to cross-examine the Plaintiff, who gave evidence through his lawful Attorney, Michael Nyadzi.
The Witness Statement of the Plaintiff’s Attorney is a repetition of the averments contained in the Statement of Claim filed on 3rd October 2