SARFO v. GHANA COMMERCIAL BANK LTD.
1990
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- LUTTERODT J
Areas of Law
- Banking Law
- Contracts
- Tort Law
1990
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The plaintiff's action against the defendant-bank for wrongful debiting and dishonouring of cheques was dismissed. The court found that the overdraft facility had not been renewed, and the bank was not obliged to honour the second cheque. The plaintiff failed to provide sufficient proof to support his claims.
JUDGMENT OF LUTTERODT J.
The plaintiff, who had been a regular customer of the defendant-bank, issued this writ praying for the following reliefs:
"(a) A declaration that the defendants have wrongfully debited the plaintiff's account with the amount of ¢700,000.
(b) Alternatively, the refund of the sum of ¢700,000 as money had and received by the defendants to the plaintiff's use.
(c) Interest on the total sum found due and owing to the plaintiff at the rate of 20 per cent per annum from 6 August 1987 until judgment.
(d) Damages of ¢5 million against the defendants."
The reason why the plaintiff instituted this action is this: He alleges that because the defendant wrongfully honoured a cheque for ¢700,000 when he had written to the defendant expressly countermanding the payment of that cheque, they were consequently unable to honour and so wrongfully dishonoured a subsequent cheque numbered A/13575617 issued by the plaintiff to another supplier. He laments that this conduct of the defendant-bank had greatly injured his business and reputation and greatly distorted his programme of repayment of facilities obtained from the defendant. It is on these premises that the plaintiff goes further than merely demanding the return of the ¢700,000 but has further claimed damages of ¢5 million.
The plaintiff's allegation by paragraph (4) of his statement of claim that it was a result of the wrongful honour of the cheque for ¢700,000 that the defendant wrongfully dishonoured the second cheque was vehemently denied by the defendant who put him to "strict proof of paragraph (4)." This is why the third issue for determination as appears on the summons for direction is: "(c) Whether as a result of the wrongful honour of cheque No. A/10047161 the defendant wrongfully dishonoured (the second cheque) cheque No. A/13575617." In other words because they wrongfully honoured the first cheque, the subsequent demand could [p.11] not be met.
Because the defendant submitted to judgment on reliefs (a)-(c) the plaintiffs also submitted to judgment on the counterclaim. The only issue for consideration therefore is whether the plaintiff is entitled to claim (d). From the state of the pleadings, I would first determine issue (a), namely whether or not the wrongful dishonour of the cheque numbered A/13575617, which I shall hereafter describe as the second cheque, arose as a result of the wrongful honour of the cheque numbered LH A/10047161 for ¢700,000, hereafter to be described a