2025
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
On appeal from the High Court, the Court of Appeal considered whether the trial judge erred in dismissing a finance company’s claim for payment of an invoice it had discounted. Evidence, notably the subpoenaed testimony of LGG’s managing director, revealed that officers of both the appellant and the respondent’s finance manager forged documents and shared the proceeds, while the respondent company had no genuine contractual relationship with LGG. Re-examining the record under the omnibus ground that the judgment was against the weight of evidence, the appellate court held that the finding of fraud was supported beyond reasonable doubt and that the respondent could not be held liable for its officer’s unauthorised acts. Applying the maxim ex turpi causa, the court refused to allow the appellant to profit from the fraudulent scheme and dismissed the appeal, awarding costs to the respondent.
<u> Ackaah-Boafo, JA</u>
[1] My Lords, the Latin maxim ex turpi causa non oritur actio translates to "no action arises from a dishonourable cause." This principle was articulated by Lord Mansfield in Holman v. Johnson (1775), 98 E.R. 1120, at p. 1121, where he stated:
"No court will assist a claimant whose cause of action is founded upon an immoral or illegal act. If, from the Plaintiff's own account or otherwise, it is evident that the claim arises ex turpi causa—that is, from wrongdoing or a violation of the law—the court will refuse to provide relief. This is not done to benefit the Defendant, but rather because the court will not support a Plaintiff engaged in unlawful conduct."
I shall later speak to the quote above in considering the merits or otherwise of this appeal.
[2] The instant appeal arises from the judgment of the High Court in Accra, dated April 13, 2021, and composed of Owusu-Ofori J (as he then was). The High Court found that the Plaintiff/Appellant company had been defrauded by one Ebenezer Amanor, who used his companies, LGG Company Limited and Huawei Devices and Services Limited, with the assistance of officers from both the Appellant and Respondent companies, to perpetrate the fraud. On this basis, the Court held that the entire transaction was vitiated and, consequently, the Plaintiff/Appellant was not entitled to recover the amount it claims from the Defendant/Respondent.
[3] Aggrieved by the decision of the High Court, the Plaintiff/Appellant has lodged this appeal, praying that the decision of the High Court be set aside. For ease of reference, the Plaintiff/Appellant will be referred to as the Appellant, and the Defendant/Respondent as the Respondent. Before dealing with the arguments advanced in support and against the appeal, I will give a brief background of the case.
[4] By a writ of summons issued on 17th July 2013, the Appellant averred that it is a limited liability company registered under the laws of Ghana and duly authorized as a finance and leasing company. As part of its business objectives, the Appellant discounts confirmed invoices drawn on government institutions and multinational companies. In furtherance of these objectives, the Appellant alleges that it sent its Business Development Officer, Maxwell Gyenimg, to the Respondent's office to prospect for business.
[5] The Appellant contends that its representative, Mr. Gyenimg, m