2024
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The Respondent invested GH₵200,000.00 in the Appellant's scheme, with an agreement to give a 15-day notice for withdrawal. Despite complying, the Appellant did not return the funds, leading to a suit. The trial court found in favor of the Respondent, which was appealed by the Appellant. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, stating that the Appellant's admission and conduct implied liability, and the grounds of appeal did not meet the procedural standards required. The court upheld that the agreement terms were clear and the Appellant failed to meet its obligations.
AckaahBoafo, J.A.
i. Overview:
[1] My Lords, t he Plaintiff/Respondent's suit against the Defendant/Appellant at the court below appears to be one battle in a larger conflict with regards to the issue of investment in this country presently. The Respondent, Keddey Samuel Kwame Ozigbodi in December 2017 invested GH ₵ 200,000.00 in the Defendant s Income Support Scheme ' for a period of two years for a targeted return rate of 29% per annum. The Respondent contended that, pursuant to the terms of the agreement, he was supposed to give the
Defendant fifteen (15) days notice to terminate his investment and for same to be paid ' out to him.
[2] The Respondent contended that he gave notice in accordance with the terms of the agreement for the termination of his investment and for same to be paid out to him. The Respondent further contended that despite giving notices to the Defendant, it refused, ignored, and/or neglected to terminate his investment and refund his monies to him. The Defendant/Appellant filed a 43paragraph statement of defence to say that it acted as an agent of the Respondent in respect of funds he invested with a Third Party, known as Seed Funds Savings and Loans Limited for a specified period of time. The Appellant contended that it notified the Third Party of its intention to redeem the investment for the Respondent but it was not in a position to honour the withdrawal request.
[3] The Appellant further contended that it has not mismanaged, misappropriated, or diverted the Plaintiff's funds it fully invested. It also contended that as an agent of the Respondent, it shall continue to pursue all available options to obtain the needed liquidity to pay the requested funds. The Appellant also contended that 'it can only pay Plaintiff's funds to him upon receipt of funds from The Seed Funds Savings and Loans Limited' and therefore , the Plaintiff/Respondent had no cause of action against it. I understand the Appellant to say that the court below prevented it from having its day in court as the trial judge prevented the matter from going to trial. To the Appellant, therefore, it was deprived of procedure justice as procedure injustice has been perpetrated against it.
[4] Further to the setting down of the suit for trial, the Appellant on April 29, 2022, filed a Third Party application to be issued to the Seed Funds Savings and Loans for ' a relief or remedy relating to or connected with the Plaintiff/Applicant's original matter of the a