KWAME OHENE v. NOBLE DREAM MICRO FINANCE LTD.
2015
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- HER LADYSHIP ANGELINA MENSAH-HOMIAH (MRS.) JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT
Areas of Law
- Contract Law
- Evidence Law
- Banking and Finance Law
2015
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The case involves a Plaintiff, a retired police officer, suing Noble Dream Micro Finance Limited for the repayment of GH¢70,800.00 invested plus accrued interest. The Defendant argued that it was not obligated to repay due to the Capital market's volatility. After failed resolution attempts, the case proceeded to trial. The Plaintiff presented evidence, including a contested investment document and testimony from a company employee, which supported his claim. The Defendant did not further participate, leading to a judgment in favor of the Plaintiff. The court held that the Plaintiff is a customer of the Defendant and entitled to repayment with interest, citing various legal precedents and the Non-Bank Financial Institution Act, 2008. The court awarded GH¢70,800.00 plus interest and costs to the Plaintiff.
JUDGMENT
This is one of hundreds of suits that have been filed against Noble Dream Micro Finance Limited by aggrieved patrons. Ordinarily, I should be talking about "customers" but for good reasons, I have refrained from using that word for now.
In the instant case, the Plaintiff is seeking re-payment of the principal amount invested in the Defendant Company plus the accrued interest. The Defendant also says that the Plaintiff was advised on the volatility of the Capital market. Yet, he chose to invest his money in the capital market and has thereby lost his investment. It is the Defendant's case that it is not under any obligation to re-pay the Plaintiff's lost investment. These assertions were denied by the Plaintiff in his reply. He maintained that he entered into a contract with the Defendant company only and the company is bound to re-pay his money together with the accrued interest as agreed upon.
After unsuccessful attempts at resolving this matter, issues were set down for trial, namely:
Whether or not the Plaintiff is a customer of the Defendant Financial Institution?
Whether or not the Plaintiff invested GH¢70,800.00 in the Defendant's Institution?
Whether or not the Plaintiff is entitled to his claim?
On 11/06/2015, the Plaintiff opened his case and led evidence to discharge the burden of proof imposed on him by sections 11(1) and 11(4) of the Evidence Act, 1975 NRCD 323. In short, the Plaintiff is required to introduce evidence which makes his assertions more probable than not when the entire evidence is assessed so as to avoid a ruling against him. This standard of proof has been applied in several cases. Notable among them are Zambrama v Segbedzi (1991) 2 GLR 221 CA; Adwubeng v Domfeh (1996-97) SCGLR 660; Takoradi Flour Mills v Samir Faris (2005-2006) SCGLR 883; Yaa Kwesi v Arhin Davis ( 2007-2008) SCGLR 580; and Continental Plastics v IMC Industries-Technik GMBH ( 2009) SCGLR 298 at 307. It is against this laid down standard that the Plaintiff's case will be measured.
The Plaintiff's evidence was concise. He told the court that he is a retired police officer and that on 01/05/2014, he invested an amount of GH¢ 60,000.00 with the Defendant Company. He tendered a document bearing the details of his investment as exhibit A. Concluding, the Plaintiff said the Defendant must pay back his money with interest whether or not the economy is bad.
Cross-examination by counsel for the Defendant was centered on two main areas. First, he sought t