MARY BAAH & 36 ORS. v. JIM WALTER FORSTER & ORS

JUDGMENT

By an amended writ of summons issued on the 11th November, 2016, the plaintiffs claim against the defendants:

1. A declaration that Plaintiffs have invested in 3rd and 4th Defendants’ Company.

2. Recovery of GH¢1,384,850 by Plaintiffs.

3. Recovery of US$50,000 or its cedi equivalent.

4. Interest on the said amounts at the prevailing rates from 13th January, 2012 to date of final payment.

5. Damages.

6. Perpetual injunction restraining Defendants their assigns, privies workmen from disposing, alienating and or interfering with all the known assets of the Defendants.

7. Legal fees and administrative expenses.

After the service of the writ, by substitution, on the defendants, they failed to file an appearance. The plaintiffs therefore applied and judgment in default of appearance was entered by the court against the defendants on the 23rd day of July, 2016 and the case fixed to a date for the assessment of damages. In the meantime, hearing notice was served on the defendants to attend court in order for damages to be assessed. However, the defendants failed to show up on the 20th day of July, 2016 the date fixed for the assessment. The plaintiffs, therefore, through their representative Samuel Dartey Junior, gave evidence to the court in proof of their claims. In particular, the court finds that Samuel Dartey gave evidence on his own behalf and on behalf of all the other plaintiffs except Edward Otu Larbi, Freda Gyasenir and Amey Stephen. Herman Asiakoley Tettey’s name was repeated on the list attached to the writ originally filed on the 3rd day of June 2016. His name appeared at number 11 and also number 19. This anomaly had been corrected on the amended writ of summons filed on the 11th November, 2016.

From the evidence on record, the court finds that the 1st and the 2nd defendants are directors of the 3rd and 4th defendants’ companies. The court also finds from the evidence that the 3rd defendant company is a registered company which is basically into real estate development and tilapia fish farming among other lines of businesses.

There is evidence on record to the effect that the defendants, under the guise of promoting investment in tilapia and shrimps farming, collected various sums of money from the plaintiffs. The court finds that the names of the plaintiffs from whom the defendants collected money are stated on exhibit ‘A’ tendered by the plaintiffs’ representative.

From the evidence on record the court finds that the def