DANIEL GIBSON DANSO vs. INTECELL INVESTMENT LTD. & 3 OTHERS

The plaintiff invested GHc 80,000 with the defendant company, expecting monthly returns of 3% interest for one year. The defendant company, described variably as a microfinance or investment company, paid interest for eight months but failed to repay the principal despite requests. The plaintiff reported the defendants to the police, leading to criminal charges for operating without a license. The defendants obtained a writ of prohibition preventing the criminal trial, asserting the matter was contractual. The plaintiff then sued for repayment of principal and interest. The defendants claimed the debt was owed by the company alone, not personally by the directors. The High Court granted summary judgment for the plaintiff, which was affirmed by the Court of Appeal. The defendants appealed to the Supreme Court.

JUDGMENT BY PROF. MENSA-BONSU (MRS.), JSC:- INTRODUCTION This case has travelled a painful and tortuous road, and comes to this Court on appeal from a decision of the Court of Appeal in a judgment delivered on 18th July 2019. The genesis of the appeal was that the High Court, had on 24th January, 2018, dismissed the application of the 2nd, 3rd and 4th Defendants (hereinafter referred to as ‘Defendants) for Misjoinder under Order 4 r 5 of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 2004 as amended; and had also upheld the 1st February application for Summary Judgment of the applicant (hereinafter referred to as ‘Plaintiff’) under order 14 of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 2004 as amended. This Ruling of the High Court granting the application of plaintiff for Summary Judgment was subsequently affirmed by the Court of Appeal on 18th July, 2019, giving rise to the instant appeal. The Respondent and Appellants herein are simply referred to as ‘Plaintiff’ and ‘Defendants’...