SEDCO PUBLISHING LIMITED VS UT HOLDINGS LIMITED
May 6, 2019
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- JUSTICE JENNIFER A. DADZIE
Areas of Law
- Contract Law
- Banking and Finance Law
- Evidence Law
- Civil Procedure
May 6, 2019
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
This commercial dispute involves a Ghanaian book producer and publisher (the plaintiff) and a finance investment company (UT Holdings, the defendant). The plaintiff placed two fixed-term investments with UT Holdings—GH¢338,784.05 in January 2017 and GH¢1,119,671.23 in June 2017—each for 182 days at 24% per annum. On maturity (August and December 2017), the defendant made only partial payments totaling GH¢260,000 and then ceased payment. The court found Exhibits A and B proved the investments’ terms and maturity and that the defendant’s representative admitted the investments and nonpayment in cross-examination. Applying Sections 14 and 10(1) of the Evidence Act and guidance from Ackah v Pergah, the court held that mere restructuring assertions lacked evidentiary support. Citing Foley v Hill, the court reaffirmed the banker’s duty to repay on demand. It ordered recovery of GH¢279,326.75 and GH¢1,253,663.67, awarded contractual 24% interest from maturity dates under CI 52, and costs of GH¢5,000.
The Plaintiff is a company registered under the laws of Ghana to produce, print and publish books and a customer of the Defendant. The Defendant is a company incorporated under the laws of Ghana to invest financial capital. The claim of the Plaintiff is that on two (2) different occasions it invested different sums of money with the Defendant for one hundred and eighty-two (182) days each and these investments were to yield interest at twenty-four per cent (24%) per annum payable at maturity, respectively. Upon maturity and Plaintiff’s demands placed on the Defendant to pay on the investments, the Defendant made only partial settlement on both transactions, forcing the Plaintiff to sue the Defendant.
The Plaintiff claims against the Defendant the following reliefs as endorsed on the Writ of Summons and the accompanying Statement of Claim that was issued on its behalf against the Defendant on January 17, 2018: 2
a) An order for the recovery of the sum of Two Hundred and Seventy-Nine Thousand Three Hundred and Twenty-Six cedis Seventy-Five pesewas (GH¢279,326.75), being the amount standing to the credit of the Plaintiff domiciled in investment transaction number UTH150165007 kept with the defendant.
b) Interest on claim (a) calculated from 1 August 2017 till date of final payment.
c) An order for the recovery of the sum of One Million Two Hundred and Fifty-Three Thousand Six Hundred and Sixty-Three cedis Sixty-Seven pesewas (GH¢1,253,663.67), being the amount standing to the credit of the Plaintiff domiciled in investment transaction number UTH150165008 kept with the defendant.
d) Interest on claim (c) calculated from 13 December 2017 till date of final payment.
e) Costs, including legal fees.
In its defence, the Defendant claimed that it was in no position to admit the claims of the Plaintiff regarding the said investments due to the fact that it had suffered serious challenges with its records and was at the time undergoing restructuring and reconciliation of its records due to the resignation of its Chief Executive Officer during whose tenure the said investments were arranged. The Defendant further contended that it is only consequent upon the completion of this restructuring and reconciliation exercise that it would be in a position to know the authenticity of the documents held by outsiders and the full extent of the indebtedness of the Defendant to its customers.
After Pre-trial, the following issues were set down:
“i. Whether the Plaintiff i