2015
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The plaintiffs sued the defendants for permitting an unlicensed bank to operate, resulting in financial losses. Default judgment was granted in the plaintiffs' favor, but the defendants' later application for leave to enter appearance out of time was refused. The Supreme Court found that the lower courts erred, noting that procedural rules regarding declaratory reliefs had not been followed and that the appellant had shown a reasonable defense. The default judgment was set aside, and the appellant was granted leave to enter appearance out of time, ensuring that the substantive legal issues could be properly adjudicated.
GBADEGBE JSC:
:On June 29, 2012, the plaintiffs-respondents-respondents took out the writ of summons herein against the appellant-appellant-appellant (appellant) claiming among certain declaratory reliefs and one other relief for the recovery of what was described as a liquidated sum of money. We shall in this delivery refer only to three such reliefs - two declaratory reliefs and the monetary claim. The said reliefs which are numbered as (a), (b), and (d) are as follows:
(A) A declaration that the deliberate and or intentional act of the 1st defendant, 2nd defendant and 3rd defendants permitting and or indulging the 4th defendant to operate commercially as a bank concern in the Greater Accra Region, Ashanti Region and Brong Ahafo Region respectively for over 2 (two) years without the requisite Bank of Ghana banking license was not only negligent and or unconscionable but unconstitutional, fraudulent and legally impermissible and as result have caused substantial miscarriage of justice and civil injuries to the plaintiffs.
(B) A declaration that by the testimony of the Representative of the Governor of the Bank of Ghana and Head of Banking Supervision ( i.e. 2nd and 3rd defendants) herein on oath in Civil Suit No RPC 102/ 2012 admitting and confirming that that the Bank of Ghana was aware that the 4th defendant was operating and also failing to warn the General Public from dealing with the 4th defendant who was operating illegally and fraudulently in foreign transactions/ exchange amounted to a breach of article 183.2(d) of the 1992 Constitution of Ghana, the Bank of Ghana Act, 2012 ( Act 612) and Banking Act, 2004 ( Act 673).
(D) Recovery of liquidated cash sum of GH 4, 977, 059.00 which the Plaintiff herein in Sunyani and Techiman respectively deposited with the 4th defendant as a bank concern on grounds of the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd defendants admission and contribution to the 4th defendant’s commission of fraud against the Plaintiff herein.”
Following the service of the writ on the defendants, the plaintiffs applied for judgment in default of appearance against them on July 16, 2012. The minutes of the court’s proceedings for that day which appears at page 42 of the record of appeal reveals that after learned counsel for the plaintiffs had moved the application the Court delivered itself as follows:
“By Court. Motion is granted as it has merits. Plaintiffs are at liberty to enter final judgment for relief (d) and interlocutory judgment for the other r