KWAME AGYEMANG ODURO vs MENZGOLD GHANA LIMITED & ANOR

The Plaintiff describes himself as a Banker and the 1st Defendant has also been described as a Limited Liability Company incorporated under the laws of Ghana and engaged in the business of sale and purchase of gold.

The 2nd Defendant is also a Director, Shareholder and Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the 1st Defendant.

The parties are in Court as a result of an investment the Plaintiff made with the 1st Defendant Company which has gone bad.

As a result, the Plaintiff claims against the Defendants as follows:

a) Recovery of GH₵40, 000. 00 being the value of 20 pounds of gold deposited with the 1st Defendant.

b) Interest on the sum of GH₵40, 000. 00 from 19th July 2018 at the Commercial Bank rate till date of final payment.

c) General Damages for Breach of Contract d) General Damages for fraudulent misrepresentation e) Costs.

From the record, the Defendants failed to file their Witness Statements and so their Statement of Defence was struck out on 8th February 2019 under Order 32 r 7A (1) (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 which provides as follows: “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. ”The Plaintiff’s case as gleaned from his Statement of Claim is that on 19th July 2018, he deposited 20 pounds of gold equivalent to GH₵40, 000. 00 for a period of six months with the 1st Defendant at its East Legon Branch.

He also alleged that he paid a non-refundable commission of GH₵2, 000. 00 to the 1st Defendant.

The 1st Defendant paid the agreed monthly returns of GH₵4, 000. 00 for the month of August 2018 but failed to make any further payment in subsequent months in clear breach of the agreement.

It is also the case of the Plaintiff that the 1st Defendant Company is a sham and same was incorporated to engage in fraudulent and deceptive business with the intention of duping unsuspecting investors.

The Plaintiff also averred that the 2nd Defendant is in breach of his fiduciary and other duties imposed on the directors and officers of the 1st Defendant Company.

For engaging in fraudulent and improper business conduct, the Plaintiff called on