GH - ISAAC DJABAN & 68 ORS VS STANBIC BANK

A. PLAINTIFFS’ RELIEFS SOUGHT[1] The Plaintiffs herein, numbering sixty-nine, are said to be employees of Euroluck Casino located at Community 8, Tema; and they instituted this action against the Defendant, a financial institution, for the following reliefs: a. Payment of cash the sum of GH¢758, 550. 00 (seven hundred and fifty –eight thousand five hundred and fifty Ghana Cedis)b. Interest on the said sum from 2014 to the time of final payment.

c. General damages against the Defendants for fraud.

B. FACTS OF THE PLAINTIFFS’ CASE[2] According to the Plaintiffs in their statement of claim and which was subsequently amended in June 2018, as employees of the above-named institution, some time in 2014, their monthly salaries were routed through the Defendant Bank and thus commenced the Plaintiffs’ association with the Defendant Bank on account of their salaries being paid through the Defendant Bank.

The Plaintiffs further contended that in the course of time, the Defendant, a financial institution and which specializes in retail banking, through one of its officers, introduced to the Plaintiffs a facility the bank was said to be operating, which was quite similar to the treasury bill scheme operated by Commercial Banks in the country. [3] According to the Plaintiffs, the officer of the Defendant’s Bank made the package look so attractive that the Plaintiffs, in their individual capacities, expressed interest in the scheme and began monthly payments to the Defendant bank in the form of investments.

The Plaintiffs stated they were made to understand that each investment made to the bank would attract an interest element of 25% a month, with opportunities to roll the investment over to attract higher returns.

Therefore, between 2014 and 2016, the Plaintiffs contended that they made individual payments of varying sums of money to the Defendant with the expectation of recouping the interest rates promised and also with the hope that they each had the opportunity to recall the investment made as and when each of them wanted. [4] Indeed, according to the Plaintiffs, all of these transactions took place at the banking hall of the Defendant’s Community 1 Branch, Tema and the Plaintiffs were further issued with official receipts, duly stamped by the bank at all material times that payments were made in the banking hall.

Also, even though the Plaintiffs were issued with receipts for some of the monies paid to the schedule officer, some of the Plaintiffs did

c. General damages against the Defendants for fraud.

Also, even though the Plaintiffs were issued with receipts for some of the monies paid to the schedule officer, some of the Plaintiffs did

ISAAC DJABAN & 68 ORS VS STANBIC BANK

Areas of Law

JUDGMENT