RACHAEL AMARLEY ADDO vs MENZGOLD GHANA LIMITED & ANOR

The Plaintiff is a customer of the 1st Defendant Company, incorporated under the laws of Ghana and engaged in the purchase and sale of gold.

The 2nd Defendant is a Director, Shareholder and the Chief Executive Officer of the 1st Defendant.

By her Writ of Summons and Statement of Claim filed on 3rd October 2018, the Plaintiff claimed these reliefs:

a) Recovery of GHS¢32, 000. 00 being the value of 16 pounds of gold deposited with the 1st Defendant.

b) Interest on the sum of GH¢32, 000. 00 from 9th April 2018 at the commercial bank rate till date of final payment.

c) General damages for breach of contract

d) General damages for fraudulent misrepresentation

e) Costs.

The Defendants’ Statement of Defence was struck out by the Court at the Case Management stage when they refused to file their Witness Statement, in line with Order 32 Rule 7A (3) (a) of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Amendment Rules 2014 C. I. 87. In the Plaintiff’s Statement of Claim, she averred that the 1st Defendant accepts deposits of gold as part of its business, and pays returns on the same.

On 9th April 2018, she deposited 16 pounds of gold equivalent to GH¢32, 000. 00 for a period of 12 months and paid a non -refundable deposit.

The Plaintiff asserted that the 1st Defendant has failed to pay the agreed monthly interest, and has also refused to return the principal investment.

She alleged fraud against the 1st Defendant, and particularized the same in paragraph 10 of her Statement of Defence.

It is her case that the 2nd Defendant engaged in improper business conduct which calls for the lifting of the veil of incorporation, so as to make the 2nd Defendant personally liable jointly and severally with the 1st Defendant.

The issues for trial are:

1. Whether or not Plaintiff deposited a total of 16 pounds of gold with the 1st Defendant worth GH¢32, 000. 00?

2. Whether or not the defendants misrepresented that 1st Defendant was engaged in genuine business capable of paying monthly returns on Plaintiff’s gold deposited with 1st defendant?

3. Whether or not the business of the 1st Defendant was fraudulent?

4. Whether or not the Plaintiff is entitled to her claim? At the trial, the Plaintiff virtually repeated the assertions in her Statement of Claim on oath and provided documents to back her investment claims. In respect of the gold deposit of 16 pounds, equivalent to GH¢32, 000. 00, the Plaintiff tendered an agreement dated 9th April 2018 wherein details of the Gold Invest