2021
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
ArkFund Capital Limited placed US$550,000 cash collateral with Stanbic Bank Ghana to secure three bank guarantees for a short-term oil import transaction benefiting Stanbic’s customer, Lawrence Mba. Under Exhibit D, the collateral was to be blocked for 30 days and returned; ArkFund alleged Stanbic failed to comply, allowing withdrawals and withholding return, causing operational disruptions, reputational harm, and regulatory issues. The High Court ordered refund of the US$550,000 with interest, denied special damages and defamation, and awarded GH¢5,000,000 general damages for breach of contract and duty of care. The Court of Appeal largely affirmed and permitted deduction of bank charges from the refund. On further appeals, the Supreme Court rejected ArkFund’s challenge to the existence of the guarantees and the bank-charge deduction, held Exhibit D bound Stanbic despite legislative references, agreed that many claimed losses were too remote, and reduced general damages to GH¢1,500,000, leaving the refund with interest intact and otherwise dismissing the appeals.
J U D G M E N T
OWUSU (MS.), JSC:-
On 13th February, 2020, the Court of Appeal, Accra, dismissed all the grounds of appeal filed by the plaintiff/appellant/appellant (to be referred to as plaintiff). It also dismissed Grounds (i), (ii), (iii), (iv), (v), (vii), and (viii) of the 1st Defendant’s/cross appellant/appellant (to be referred to simply as 1st Defendant) cross-appeal. Ground (vi) was upheld, whilst ground (ix) was upheld in part with regard to the sum to be refunded.
Dissatisfied with the decision of the Court of Appeal, the Plaintiff filed the instant appeal to the Supreme Court on the following grounds;
The Courts below occasioned for the Plaintiff a grave miscarriage of justice when despite the positive evidence on record, being 1st Defendant’s own record, held that 1st Defendant actually issued the three Bank Guarantees just because Plaintiff had erroneously believed that, the said Bank Guarantees had been issued.
That the findings of the Learned Justices that Plaintiff should refund bank charges associated with the issuance of the Bank Guarantees out of the cash collateral (US$550,000.00) is not borne out of the evidence on record.
That the refusal of the Court of Appeal to enhance the award of general damages assessed at five million Ghana cedis (GHc5,000,000.00 by the trial court in the special circumstances of this suit is against the weight of evidence.
That the Courts below ought to have exercised their discretion to enhance damages in the sum of thirty million Ghana cedis (GH¢30,000,000) to compensate for at least the direct costs and losses incurred by Plaintiff as a result of the actions and inactions of the 1st Defendant.
Additional grounds to be filed upon receipt of the Record of Appeal.
The 1st Defendant/cross-appellant/cross-appellant also appealed to this Court on the following grounds;
The Court of Appeal failed to pay due and/or proper regard to the dictates of binding precedent and legislation which prevented the 1st Defendant from returning the blocked funds to Plaintiff without due authorization of 2nd Defendant.
In affirming the award of the High Court of general damages for Plaintiff in the sum of five million Ghana cedis (GH¢5,000,000.00), the Court of Appeal erred in accepting the High Court’s finding that, failure by 1st Defendant to transfer back to the Plaintiff the blocked sum of US$550,000 (less the bank charges), was the reason for the suspension by the Security Exchange Commission of Plaintiff’s licens