OKRU BOATENG v. NOBLE DREAM FINANCIAL SERVICE LTD.
2016
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- ANGELINA MENSAH-HOMIAH (MRS.)
Areas of Law
- Contract Law
- Civil Procedure
- Evidence Law
2016
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The plaintiff sought recovery of GH¢ 44,836.48 plus interest and general damages from the defendant for breach of contract. The court struck out the defendant's defense due to non-compliance with court orders. The plaintiff's investments and the defendant's failure to repay were proven through oral testimony and documentary evidence. The court ruled in the plaintiff's favor, affirming his status as a customer and awarding both the claimed amount and nominal damages, along with interest and costs.
JUDGMENT
This is a suit in which the plaintiff seeks to recover an amount of GH¢ 44, 836.48 together with interest and general damages for breach of contract from the defendant. The defendant denied the assertions contained in the plaintiff 's statement of claim, but following the refusal of the defendant to file its witness statement as ordered by the court, its defence was struck out in accordance with order 32 rule 7A (3) (b)of the High Court (Civil Procedure) (Amendment) Rules, 2014 (C.I. 87).
The court has been invited to determine three issues, namely:
Whether or not the plaintiff is a customer of the defendant final institution?
Whether or not the plaintiff invested GH¢44, 836.48 in the defendant's institution?
Whether or not the plaintiff is entitled to his claim?
Counsel for the defendant was served with a hearing notice to attend the trial on 06/04/2016, but very characteristic of him, he failed to show up. No reasons were given for the absence of the defendant and its counsel. The court proceeded to allow the plaintiff to prove his claims at that point.
At the trial, the plaintiff relied on his witness statement filed on 15/07/15 as his evidence-in-chief wherein he testified that following a radio announcement inviting prospective customers to invest in the defendant's products, he opened an account with the defendant's branch at Maakro, and deposited an amount of GH¢ 22,000 . Later he deposited the sum of GH¢7000.00. He was initially assigned an account number- SA 0001141; and subsequently, another account number- 20-08011141-01 was generated for him. He was given a certificate showing the amount invested as fixed deposit, the rate of interest he was entitled to earn, and the maturity date. The plaintiff further testified that he is unable to trace his first certificate of deposit but tendered in evidence three certificates issued to him when the money was re-invested. In all, the plaintiff said his investments covered the period 31 October, 2013 through to 06/08/ 2014 and the total amount due him inclusive of interest as of 06/08/2014 is GH¢ 44, 836.48.
In support of the above oral evidence, the plaintiff tendered various investment certificates and deposit slips indicating monies paid into his account with the defendant as exhibits OA to OA6.
Even though the Defendant elected not to participate in this trial, the onus of proof still rests on the plaintiff to show that he is entitled to the reliefs he seeks. He is required to introduc