MOSES BOSOMPEM VS UBOSS GHANA LIMITED

The plaintiff’s claims are for:

“i. ) The recovery of the amount of GHc80, 000. 00 being the outstanding balance of the amount of GHc100, 000. 00 given as financial assistance to the Defendant to augment its business operations.

ii. ) The recovery of the amount of GHc60, 000. 00 being the agreed accrued interest on the total amount given to the Defendant by the Plaintiff.

iii. ) Interest on the amount of GHc100, 000. 00 from January 2019 to date of final payment.

iv. ) Cost incidental to this action”. It is the plaintiff’s case that in 2016, at the defendant’s request through an application, he granted the defendant financial assistance in the sum of GHc100, 000. 00 in two different instalments of GHc50, 000. 00 each.

Per the terms of the agreement, the parties agreed that the amount would attract an annual interest of 20%. The defendant had paid only GHc20, 000. 00 out of the total amount, leaving an unpaid balance of GHc80, 000. 00 and the agreed interest of 20% per annum.

All efforts to reach the defendant’s officers to settle her indebtedness had proved futile.

The defendant has denied the plaintiff’s claims. She contends that the GHc100, 000. 00 she received was for the purchase of stock to be sold and the profits shared between the parties at an agreed ratio.

According to the defendant, the plaintiff promised to top up to the needed amount but failed, making it difficult for her to take any meaningful step with the money already given her.

Subsequently, the plaintiff proposed to her to use the GHc100, 000. 00 to buy stock for sale and give him 30% of profits on the first GHc50, 000. 00 and 20% of the profits on the second GHc50, 000. 00 and later followed up with another proposal to consolidate all monies payable to him and same used to acquire shares accordingly.

In February, 2020, she paid GHc20, 000. 00 when the plaintiff demanded a refund of his invested sum.

However, due to the harsh effect of the Covid 19 pandemic, she had been out of business and could not effect any further payment.

She counterclaimed for the following reliefs: “a) A declaration that the said amount sent to the Defendant by the Plaintiff was not financial assistance but a deposit of the investment package agreed upon by both parties; b) A declaration that the Plaintiff is only entitled to the agreed percentages of profits (if any) made on the said investment sums and not interests as claimed”. The following issues were adopted for trial: i. Whether or not the amou