February 13, 2025
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
SDC Finance Limited appealed the High Court’s dismissal of its claim to recover GH¢5,175,000 from Huawei Technologies (GH) S.A. Ltd arising out of an invoice discounting facility procured through LGG Company Ltd. The Court of Appeal, per Ackaah‑Boafo JA, narrated how SDC’s Business Development Officer was introduced to Huawei officers and LGG sought financing, with two prior transactions repaid by bankers’ drafts from Huawei Systems and Devices, an entity linked to LGG and unrelated to Huawei Technologies. Subpoenaed evidence from LGG’s managing director, Ebenezer Denzel Amanor, described distribution of proceeds among SDC and Huawei officers. Applying NRCD 323 s.13(1) and Act 179 ss.139–143, as illuminated by Dalex Finance, the Court held that fraud was proved beyond reasonable doubt and Huawei was not bound by its finance manager’s unauthorized acts. The appeal was dismissed and costs of GH¢20,000 awarded to Huawei.
Ackaah-Boafo, JA
[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