THE REPUBLIC vs CASHPLUS INVESTMENT LTD & ORS
2015
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- JENNIFER DODOO (MRS) JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT
Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Contract Law
- Banking and Finance Law
- Evidence Law
- Tort Law
2015
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The Applicant sought relief from judgments and orders obtained by the 1st Respondent, citing procedural irregularities and fraud. Her applications, including a review and injunction, were dismissed. The Respondents executed a garnishee order against her account. She filed contempt proceedings, alleging illegal fund transfer due to a pending injunction. The court concluded no contempt occurred as execution was completed before the injunction application. The Applicant failed to prove contempt beyond reasonable doubt, leading to the discharge of Respondents and awarding costs against the Applicant.
In an application filed on 27th July 2015, the Applicant prayed the court for “an order for committal for contempt in the nature of imprisonment or the payment of a heavy fine or both and the refund of the Applicant’s money fraudulently taken from her account at ECOBANK as fully explained in terms of the accompanying affidavit. ”It was the Applicant’s case that the 1st Respondent obtained judgment against the Applicant in a case entitled Cash Plus Investment Ltd v. Rose Nyantakyi & Veronica Kwarteng.
However, before the 1st Respondent could go into execution of its judgment, the Applicant filed a suit at the High Court seeking to set aside the said judgment on the grounds that it had been obtained by fraud.
The Applicant stated further that without entering an appearance, the 1st Respondent as Defendant proceeded to file a defence to the action.
The Defendant then filed an application to set aside the Plaintiff’s writ.
According to the Applicant, after a series of adjournments, the application was eventually heard in her absence and her suit struck out.
The Applicant then filed an application for review citing the following grounds:
(i) The Defendant had not entered any appearance before filing the Defence which constituted a breach of a mandatory provision.
ii) In the alternative, the Defendant having filed a defence cannot lawfully be allowed to set aside the very suit it intended to defend.
iii)The Defendant’s lawyer had not filed any Notice of Appointment to demonstrate that he could lawfully act for the Defendant.
iv)Above all, the Plaintiff was not served with any hearing notice before the court heard the application and dismissed the suit on 9th July 2014.
v) The hearing notice showed that it had been served months before the hearing of the motion which constitutes fraud.
The Applicant submitted that she had after this instituted another suit i. e. FTR/1/15 against the Respondent claiming the following reliefs:
(i) An order to set aside the orders made by Her Lordship Justice Bempong (Mrs) in Suit No. BMISC/339/13 dismissing the Plaintiff’s suit on grounds that same was obtained by fraud and confirmed no legal rights upon the Defendant.
ii) An order to set aside the judgment of the High Court (Commercial Division) dated 16th November 2012 before His Lordship Richard Adjei-Frimpong Suit No. BFS/125/2010 on grounds that it was obtained by fraud.
iii) An order to set aside the loan agreement between the parties on grounds of fraud, uncons