SONIAG COMPANY LIMITED & ANOTHER vs BOND SAVINGS & LOANS LTD. & ANOTHER
2022
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- HER LADYSHIP, JANE HARRIET AKWELEY QUAYE (MRS.),
Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Evidence Law
- Banking and Finance Law
2022
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
This High Court ruling concerns garnishee proceedings involving CAL Bank and the judgment debtor’s account. After granting a garnishee order nisi on 22 June 2022 with a return date of 14 July, the court received Exhibit ‘CB’, the account statements. Plaintiffs argued CAL Bank defied the order by debiting GHC50,000 and GHC841,590.18, and urged the court to compel payment as a deterrent. CAL Bank explained the GHC50,000 Consolidated Bank Ghana cheque deposited by Theonat Enterprise was never cleared and was reversed, and that GHC841,590.18 was an erroneous credit intended for WILMAR Africa via a Prudential Bank cheque for Sonturk Investment Limited, which was corrected. Applying civil evidentiary burdens and banking law, the court held the transactions were not attachable debts and found no disobedience.
On the 22nd of June 2022, this Court granted a motion for Garnishee Order Nisi with a return date of 14th July, 2022 for the Garnishee herein. On the return date, the Garnishee bank was represented in Court, The representative tendered Exhibit ‘CB’, a statement of the Defendant’s accounts with the bank and the statement showed that on 4th June 2022 there was a debit on the account of GHC50,000.00 and on the 30th June 2022 there was another debit of GHC841,590.18 It is the position of the Plaintiffs that this act of the Garnishee is a clear defiance of the authority of this Court and if the Garnishee is not made to pay the said amount to the Plaintiffs, it will set a dangerous precedent which will further deepen the woes of the Judgment Creditors.
According to the Garnishee Bank, between June 23rd and the date of hearing on July 14, 2022 there appeared to be some credits and debits on the face of the statements of accounts of the Defendant to which the Garnishee bank gave reasons. The first issue was in respect of a GHC50,000.00 Consolidated Bank cheque which was deposited by the Judgment Debtor in its account with the Garnishee bank but when the Garnishee bank sought to clear it, the Consolidated Bank could not confirm the cheque and as such the Garnishee bank had to return the cheque. The second transaction was in respect of some GHC841,590.18 which was erroneously paid into the Judgment Debtor’s account although the funds belonged to another company, Wilmar Africa. Once the error was realised, the Garnishee bank immediately corrected it.
ISSUE
Whether or not the Garnishee CAL Bank has disobeyed the Order Nisi granted by this Court on the 23rd of June 2022?
It is trite Law that the standard of proof in all civil actions, without exception, is proof by preponderance of probabilities, having regard to Section 11(4) and 12 of the Evidence Act of 1975 (NRCD 323). In dealing with the principle that “he who asserts must prove”, the Supreme Court held in the case of OKUDJETO ABLAKWA (NO.2) v. ATTORNEY GENERAL AND OBETSEBI LAMPTEY (NO.2) [2012] 2 SCGLR 845 that:
“He who assets assume the onus of proof…. What this rule literally means is that. If a person goes to Court to make an allegation, the onus is on him to lead evidence and prove that allegation, unless the allegation is admitted. If he fails to do that the ruling on that allegation will go against him. Sated more explicitly, a party cannot win a case in Court if the case is based on an allegation wh