SALEMOK GHANA LIMITED v. ECOBANK GHANA LIMITED
June 26, 2019
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- His Lordship Justice Kweku T. Ackaah-Boafo
Areas of Law
- Banking and Finance Law
- Contract Law
- Evidence Law
- Tort Law
June 26, 2019
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
This case concerns Salemok Ghana Limited, a freight forwarding company that maintained dollar and cedi accounts at Ecobank’s Silverstar Tower branch in Accra, with Managing Director Salia Adams and Operations Manager Faustina Asarefori as signatories. Salemok alleged a series of unauthorized online transfers from its dollar account between December 22 and 24, 2014, including after a customer remittance from Sierra Leone, which left the account nearly depleted. Salemok reported to Ecobank and the police; Ecobank’s staff indicated recipients in Nigeria, internal branch transfers, and a CalBank account, and some amounts were reversed. Ecobank argued the transfers were authorized, that SMS alerts were delivered to the MD’s number, and that Salemok was bound by online banking terms, yet it produced neither a signed agreement nor its investigative report. The court found the transactions were unusual given Salemok’s history of cheque-based withdrawals, held the bank failed to prove customer authorization, and concluded Ecobank was negligent for processing and failing to promptly notify Salemok, awarding damages, interest, and costs.
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\