SAMPSON XEPONU TOMMEY v. STANDARD CHARTERED BANK GHANA LTD
2018
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- Samuel K. A. Asiedu
Areas of Law
- Contract Law
- Civil Procedure
2018
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
This case involves a dispute over the handling of a $10,000 Treasury Bill investment by the defendant bank following a previous judgment in 2013. The plaintiff sought various reliefs, alleging the bank's non-compliance with the post-judgment directives. The court found that the issues were already addressed in the prior litigation (Suit No. BFS/451/2010). The court held that the defendant had complied with the plaintiff's instructions to stop the investment roll-over, credited the plaintiff’s account, and provided a bank statement. The court dismissed the plaintiff's action and awarded costs to the defendant.
JUDGMENT
In March 2013 judgment was entered for the plaintiff against the defendant herein for reliefs in Suit No. BFS/451/2010 which the plaintiff had taken out against the defendant. The plaintiff alleges that in the judgment given in Suit No. BFS/451/2010 no order was made about a $10,000.00 Treasury Bill investment he had with the defendant because the defendant had admitted, in its pleading before the court, that the said $10,000.00 Treasury Bill investment was still rolling over on a 91 day basis. The plaintiff says that after the delivery of the judgment, he has made several but fruitless efforts to be given not only a statement on the investment but also to enable him access the said investment together with interest accrued thereon. The plaintiff therefore issued the instant writ against the defendant for:
a. An order directed at the Defendant to furnish the Plaintiff with a full statement of account on his USD10, 000.00 or its equivalent invested in 91 day Treasury Bill from the 2nd day of February 2009 till the final date of payment.
b. An order appointing an independent Auditor/Accountant to reconcile Plaintiff’s accounts with the Defendant on his USD10, 000.00 or its equivalent invested in 91 day Treasury Bill (including application of agreed interest rates on the said investment and reversal of incorrect charges.
c. An order directed at the Defendant to pay all sums ascertained by the independent Auditor/Accountant to be due the Plaintiff together with any interest on same until the final date of payment.
d. General Damages for the inconvenience caused Plaintiff
e. A further order against the Defendant to pay costs and the legal expenses of the Plaintiff in this suit.
The defendant has denied holding the said $10,000.00 Treasury Bill investment presently because, according to the defendant, the plaintiff requested the defendant to stop the roll-over of the investment which the defendant, accordingly, obliged after which the said amount was credited to the plaintiff’s account and a statement made available to the plaintiff upon demand. From the pleadings therefore, the following issues stand out for determination by the court. First, whether or not subsequent to the judgment in Suit No. BFS/451/2010 the plaintiff requested the defendant to stop the roll-over of the $10,000.00 Treasury Bill investment. Second, whether or not the defendant carried out the plaintiff’s instructions with respect to the stoppage of the investment and credited