KENNEDY GYEKYE BOADU v. ZENITH BANK (GH) LTD
2022
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
- HENRY A. KWOFIE JA PRESIDING
- P. BRIGHT MENSAH JA
- RICHARD ADJEI-FRIMPONG JA
Areas of Law
- Contract Law
- Commercial Law
- Banking and Finance Law
- Evidence Law
- Civil Procedure
2022
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The Court of Appeal, per Bright Mensah JA, set aside the High Court (Commercial Division), Accra’s dismissal of Digital Cash Service’s suit against Zenith Bank Ghana for unpaid June 2017 mobile money commission. Under Exhibit A, the appellant purchased MTN e‑cash from Zenith and sold it to MTN subscribers, including allied entities (KG Cash Services, KS Glob Services, KB RIGMA Enterprise, G‑KAB Services) and banks like Ecobank. The trial court adopted a purposive interpretation to conclude the appellant engaged in round‑tripping and breached the agreement, but found no fraud. On appeal, the court held Exhibit A and Bank of Ghana rules were unambiguous and should be interpreted by their ordinary meaning; the respondent failed to prove any breach, fraud, or round‑tripping, and there was no evidence Ecobank demanded payment from Zenith. Evidence showed e‑cash sales in May and June 2017 generated commission and profits, and Zenith’s unilateral cap on commission lacked contractual basis. The court allowed the appeal, entered judgment for the appellant on all reliefs except special damages, and awarded general damages and costs.
BRIGHT MENSAH JA:
The High Court (Commercial Division), Accra after trial of the case the subject of the instant appeal, delivered its judgment on 28th day of May 2020 and dismissed the claim of the plaintiff/appellant herein. It is against the judgment of the lower court that this appeal has been launched on the grounds listed here below. That is to say:
i. The judgment is against the weight of evidence.
ii. The judge erred in law when he ruled that on a holistic interpretation
of parties’ agreement, plaintiff/appellant did not live up to the
purpose and intendment of Exhibit A when as required under the
agreement and industry practice plaintiff/appellant sold all e-cash purchased from defendant to various MTN subscribers.
iii. The learned judge erred when he found that plaintiff/appellant engaged in round tripping using related entities when in fact no
evidence of return of e-cash back to defendant was established.
iv. The learned judge arrived at a wrong conclusion of facts unsupported by the evidence adduced when he held that Ecobank
Ghana made a demand for payment on defendant.
v. The learned trial judge misconceived the import of Exhibit 3 and
thereby occasioned plaintiff/appellant substantial miscarriage of
justice.
vi. Further grounds of appeal would be filed upon receipt of the record
of proceedings.
See: pp353-355 of the record of appeal [roa]
I need to put it on record that no further grounds of appeal were ever filed.
By this appeal the plaintiff/appellant seeks from this court, the reversal of the judgment of the court below whilst judgment be entered in his favour. In this appeal, the plaintiff shall henceforth be referred to simply as the appellant and the defendant, respondent respectively.
The suit:
It is common ground that the appellant on the 1st day of June 2018 caused to be issued in the registry of the High Court (Commercial Division), Accra the writ of summons accompanied by a statement of claim by which suit appellant claimed against the respondent, the under-listed judicial reliefs:
1. An order for recovery of the sum of Eighty Eight Thousand Two
Ghana Cedis Fifty Pesewas (Ghc88,082.50) being unpaid com-
mission for the month of June 2017.
2. Interest at defendant’s commercial lending rate on the sum of Ghc
88,082.50 from July to 2017 to the date of final payment.
3. Special damages of Ghc88,082.50 from July 2017 for loss of
business.
4. General damages for breach of contract.
5. Costs on a full