STENA UNICORN OFFSHORE SERVICES v. SPRINGFIELD EXPLORATION AND PRODUCTION LIMITED & ANOR

ASIEDU, JSC:

[1]. FACTS

By a writ and amended statement of claim issued out from the Registry of the High Court, Accra, the Plaintiffs/Respondents/Respondents (hereinafter called the Plaintiffs) claimed against the Defendant/Appellant/Defendant/Cross Appellant (hereinafter referred to as the Defendant) the following reliefs:

1. Recovery of the sum of GH₵ 25, 726, 804.29 being aggregate of sums received by Defendant but not credited to plaintiffs account, shortfall in transfers made on behalf of plaintiffs, non-transfer of sums to plaintiffs’ suppliers and international erroneous charge (debit) to plaintiffs account of loan facilities and interest charged thereon.

2. Interest on the sum due from 7th September 2009 to date of final payment.

3. Damages for fraudulent misrepresentation.

4. Cost to include Solicitors fees.

[1.2]. The Plaintiffs described themselves as incorporated entities under the laws of Ghana, trading in cosmetics and allied beauty products. The Plaintiffs averred that they operated accounts with the Defendant, a licenced banking financial institution. That the relationship between the parties has been that the Plaintiffs deposit funds into the Plaintiffs’ account with the Defendant and also pay third party cheques due the Plaintiff, into the account as credits. That at the request of the Plaintiffs, the Defendant would transfer by SWIFT, Plaintiffs’ funds in Plaintiffs’ account with the Defendant to designated suppliers of the Plaintiffs outside Ghana.

[1.3]. It is the case of the Plaintiffs that sometime in 2013, the Plaintiffs noticed that some deposits made by the Plaintiffs into the Plaintiffs’ account with the Defendant did not reflect in the account. That this anomaly prompted the Plaintiffs to request for the Plaintiffs’ Bank Statement from the Defendant. That upon receipt of the Bank Statement, the Plaintiffs were dismayed to discover that some payments which had been made into the Plaintiffs’ account did not reflect as credits. The Plaintiffs allege that they drew the Defendant’s attention to these anomalies and the Defendant promised that the said anomalies would be rectified. The Plaintiffs averred further that they received complaints from Plaintiffs’ suppliers of non-payments or underpayments for goods supplied the Plaintiffs. These developments, coupled with the Defendant’s deliberate refusal on several occasions to honour Plaintiffs’ instructions to the Defendant to, among others, transfer funds, broug