SAMUEL KOW DONKOR & ANOTHER v. NOBLE REALTY LTD.

G.S. SUURBAAREH, J.A.: This is an appeal from the judgment of the High Court, Accra, Human Rights and Financial Division dated 29th July, 2016. The High Court entered judgment for reliefs sought by the plaintiffs/respondents with observation that relief (ii) had been granted earlier by the court differently constituted.

Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment, the defendant/ appellant has mounted the present appeal on the basis of the following grounds of appeal contained in the notice of appeal filed on 16th August, 2018.

“1. The learned trial judge erred in law and deviated from the settled authorities when she held that the Defendant/Appellant had been fraudulent in its dealings with the Plaintiffs/ Respondents.

2. The learned trial judge respectfully erred in law and deviated from the settled authorities when failed to resolve the issues relating to misrepresentation and fraud that had been particularised by the Plaintiffs/Respondents in their statement of claim by applying elements relating to fraud/ fraudulent misrepresentation – the Tort of Deceit.

3. The learned trial judge respectfully erred and deviated from the settled authorities when she held that the fact that the Defendant/ Appellant had any gold at all to sell to a party Winster Group in breach of the Agreement between the parties is ample evidence that the contract had not been frustrated.

4. The learned trial judge respectfully erred when she ruled that the fraud perpetrated by the Defendant/Appellant in selling the gold to the third party and suppressing the proceeds being fraudulent proceeds, would vitiate the contract between the parties.

5. The learned trial judge respectfully erred in law and deviated from the settled authorities when she granted the Plaintiffs/ Respondents their reliefs.

6. The judgment is against the weight of the evidence.”

The facts giving rise to the present appeal arose out of an agreement entered into by the parties on 4th July, 2010 for the purpose of mining, extraction, marketing and sale of minerals, mining consultancy and logistics. The parties began their relationship when the defendant/ appellant, which was engaged in the mining business, approached the 1st plaintiff/respondent for a loan to enable it supplement its working capital for its mining project. As the 1st plaintiff/respondent had little or no knowledge about the mining sector, officers of the defendant/ appellant had to educate him on the mining sector. The defendant