SALEMOK GHANA LIMITED v. ECOBANK GHANA LIMITED
2019
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- His Lordship Justice Kweku T. Ackaah-Boafo
Areas of Law
- Contract Law
- Banking and Finance Law
- Evidence Law
- Tort Law
2019
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
Salemok Ghana Limited sued Ecobank Ghana Limited for unauthorized withdrawals of $8,000 from its account in December 2014 and sought damages for negligence. The court found that Salemok did not authorize those transactions and that the Bank had been negligent in handling the account. The court awarded Salemok $5,000, damages for negligence in the amount of GH¢10,000, and costs of GH₵8,000. Additionally, Salemok was entitled to interest from December 22, 2014, until the final payment. The judgment established principles regarding duty of care in banking operations, burden of proof in civil cases, and definitions of negligence.
JUDGMENT
i. Introduction:
[1] The Plaintiff Company, Salemok Ghana Limited ("Salemok"), claims $5,000 United States Dollars and interest against the Defendant for unauthorized transaction that occurred on its account, damages for negligence and costs from the Defendant, Ecobank Ghana Limited (the "Bank"), for unauthorized withdrawals from its dollar account and, for damages for loss suffered as a result of the Bank's negligence in handling Salemok's monies in its account with the Bank.
[2] Salemok's claim relates to an alleged unauthorized transfer of money between December 22, 2014 and about December 24, 2014 totaling $8,000 and related complaint lodged by a letter dated January 7, 2015 to the Bank upon the discovery of the unauthorized transfers.
[3]The claim of the Plaintiff was met with a statement of defence filed by the Defendant on January 26, 2016 in which the Plaintiff’s claim was vehemently denied. The Defendant contends that the Plaintiff failed to comply with the terms and conditions of the online banking agreement it signed with the Defendant. According to the Defendant the Plaintiff failed to prove that the Defendant made unauthorized wire transfer in the sum of $8,000.00 from the Plaintiff’s account. The Defendant did not file a Counterclaim.
ii. Issues for Trial
[4] At the close of the pleadings the issues contained in the Application for Directions filed by the Plaintiff on February 23, 2016 and adopted by this Court differently constituted for trial were:-
a) Whether or not the Defendant made unauthorized wire transfer in the sum of US$8,000.00 from the Plaintiff Account No. 00521044399855401?
b) Whether or not there has been previous unauthorized wire transfer from the Plaintiff’s account.
c) Whether or not the Plaintiff has ever used the online banking services provided by the Defendant?
d) Whether or not the Plaintiff is entitled to its claims.
e) Any other issues arising out of the pleadings.
iii. Determination of the Issues by the Court
[5] The law is trite that a party who asserts a fact assumes the responsibility of proving same. The burden of producing evidence as well as the burden of persuasion is therefore cast on that party and the standard required is provided for by virtue of sections 10,11 and 12 of the Evidence Act 1975 [NRCD 323). The stated provisions have received judicial blessing as the Supreme Court has pronounced on them in the past to be the nature and standard of proof in civil cases.
[6\