JONATHAN ARTHUR v. KWAME DAVID
2016
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- SAMUEL K. A. ASIEDU
Areas of Law
- Contract Law
- Evidence Law
- Civil Procedure
2016
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The case involved a financial dispute in which the plaintiff sought to recover an outstanding loan amount with interest from the defendant. The court had to determine the actual amount loaned and the applicable interest while also addressing a counterclaim of malicious prosecution by the defendant. The court found in favor of the plaintiff, awarding GH₵30,024 plus interest at 8% per month from 1st January 2014 until full payment. The defendant's counterclaim was dismissed due to lack of evidence.
JUDGMENT
By a writ of summons issued on the 18th February, 2014 the plaintiff claims against the defendant:
a. An order for the recovery of GH₵99, 900 being the outstanding amount owed plaintiff by the defendant as at 31st December, 2013.
b. Interest thereon at the prevailing bank rate from 1st January, 2014 up to the date of final payment.
c. Cost.
The defendant entered Appearance after the service on him of the plaintiff’s writ and its accompanying statement of claim and then filed a statement of defence, wherein he counterclaimed for
a. General damages against the plaintiff for malicious prosecution after the defendant suffered loss and damage assessed at GH₵150,000.
b. Legal cost.
When pre-trial settlement proceedings failed to yield any fruitful result, the matter was set down for hearing at which the plaintiff gave evidence and closed his case without calling any witness. Likewise, the defendant also gave evidence and announced the closure of his case without calling further evidence.
The facts of the case are that the parties became friends at a time when the plaintiff was a staff at the Standard Chartered Bank and the defendant a customer of the Bank. The defendant who was ordinarily resident in Cyprus, needed financial assistance to enable him pay for customs duties and other clearing charges at the port so he could take delivery of some goods he had shipped into the country. The defendant therefore contacted the plaintiff who arranged for some funds for the defendant. Later, when the defendant was not forthcoming with the repayment, the plaintiff reported the matter to the police who got in touch with the defendant through the Interpol in Cyprus. Finally, when the defendant came down to Ghana, the police arrested him and after sometime, the plaintiff issued the instant writ against the defendant claiming the sum endorsed on the writ of summons.
The first issue that crops up from the pleadings for determination is whether or not defendant requested for funding to which the plaintiff provided GH₵29,093 at an agreed interest of 8% per month. For, whereas the plaintiff has asserted in paragraph 5 of his statement of claim that he raised and gave to the defendant an amount of GH₵29,093 at an agreed rate of 8% per month, the defendant denies this allegation and asserts that the amount given him by the plaintiff was GH₵27,684.29 inclusive of interest. It is therefore the duty of the plaintiff to adduce relevant and cogent evidence to prove his