LINDA LYDIA v. NOBLE DREAM FINANCIAL SERVICES
2016
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- ANGELINA MENSAH-HOMIAH (MRS.) JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT
Areas of Law
- Contract Law
- Commercial Law
- Civil Procedure
2016
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The Plaintiff sued Noble Dream Financial Services Limited for recovery of her investment of GH¢38,675.00 plus interest. The Defendant claimed the investment was in the capital market and cited economic downturn for non-payment. However, they failed to provide evidence, leading the court to base the judgment on the Plaintiff's evidence alone. The court found that the Plaintiff did not authorize investment in the capital market and that the Defendant was indebted to her, awarding her the principal amount plus interest and costs.
JUDGMENT
On 20/02/2015, the Plaintiff herein instituted the instant action against Noble Dream Financial Services Limited for the Recovery of the sum of GH¢38,675.00 plus interest at the rate of 10.5% per 91 days from 15th January, 2014 till date of final payment.
The Plaintiff's case is simple and straight forward. She alleged that on 14/10/2013, she invested a total amount of GH¢38,675.00 with the Defendants at an interest rate of 10.50% for 91 days and she was given a certificate of investment to that effect. The Plaintiff further asserted that the Defendant has failed to repay the money together with the accrued interest since the maturity of the investment on 15/01/2014.
By its statement of defence filed on 13/3/15, the Defendant admitted that the Plaintiff is its customer but reiterated that the Plaintiff invested her money in the capital market but not in the Defendant's products. The Defendant also averred that the economic down turn of the Ghanaian economy is the reason for its inability to repay the Plaintiff and that it is not under any obligation to repay the Plaintiff's lost investment.
The Court has been invited to determine two issues: (i) whether or not the Plaintiff authorized the defendant to invest her money in the capital Market? and
(ii) whether or not the Defendant is indebted to the Plaintiff?
From the pleadings, the evidential burden as well as the burden of persuasion of the first issue rests on the Defendant who averred that the Plaintiff invested her money in the capital market but not in the defendant's products. This assertion was denied by the Plaintiff.
Based on the provisions of sections 11(4), 12(1) & (2) of the Evidence Act, 1975 NRCD 323, the Defendant must lead credible evidence from which the court can find on the balance of probabilities that its assertion is more probable than not. This degree and standard of proof has been applied in several cases. These include Majolagbe v Larbi (1959) GLR 190 at 192; Zambrama V Segbedzie (1991) 2 GLR 221;Yaa Kwesi v Arhin
Davis(2007/08) SCGLR 580; Sarkodie v FKA Co. Ltd. (2009) SCGLR 65 holding 1 and Abbey v Antwi (2010) SCGLR 17 at 19 (holding 2).
The Defendant Company failed to file its witness statement as ordered by the court on 30/10/2015. On 04/02/2016, the court granted the Defendant an extension of time to file its witness statement by 09/02/2016. Even though counsel for the Defendant was present in Court when that order was made, the Defendant did not file any wit