WRIGHT vs. WRIGHT [1993]DLCA4980

Date	1993-05-06
Suit No.	[1992 – 1993] 3 G B R 1091 – 1094 C.A
Citation No.	[1993]DLCA4980

ESSIEM JA

AMUAH JA

LUTTERODT JA

SEKYI HUGHES FOR THE APPELLANT.

E B ODURO FOR THE RESPONDENT.

[1993]DLCA4980
																																						<div class="restriction-wrapper">
														<div class="container-lg">
															<div class="row">
																<div class="col-md-12 restricted-content">
																	<div class="restricted-content-img-wrapper">
																		<div class="lock-icon bounce-7">
																			<img class=""
																				src="https://www.dennislawgh.com/dl-assets/dl-images/lock-content.png"
																				alt="Subscription based content">
																		</div>
																	</div>
																	 
																		<a href="https://www.dennislawgh.com/login"
																		class="btn btn-primary btn-lg"
																		style="font-family: 'open sans'; text-transform: capitalize; border-radius: 8px"> 
																		Login to Read Full Case </a>
																	 
																	
																</div>
															</div>
														</div>
													</div>
													<main id="main" class="content" style="min-height: 60rem" >WRIGHT<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>WRIGHT<o:p></o:p>[COURT
OF APPEAL]<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

[1992 – 1993] 3 G B R 1091 – 1094
C.A&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; DATE: 6 MAY 1993<o:p></o:p>

E
B ODURO FOR THE RESPONDENT.<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

</div>LUTTERODT JA. <o:p></o:p>After
the death of the father of the plaintiff-respondent (I shall hereafter refer to
him as the ‘plaintiff’) in 1958, the defendant-appellant, his uncle, gave him
two suits as his share of his late father’s property. Unknown to him, his
father had, under his will, bequeathed to him four suits and the sum of £G10.
When he got to know of this, almost some 30 years later, he instituted an
action in the High Court Cape Coast, against the defendant, the executor who
was granted probate in 1962 to administer the estate.<o:p></o:p>In
that action the plaintiff sought among other things, (a) an order compelling
the defendant as executor and administrator of the estate to pay to the
plaintiff the sum of £G10 or its equivalent in cedis in addition to two suits
in accordance with the will and (b) interest at the current bank rate on £G10
or its equivalent in cedis from when it became due to the date of judgment.<o:p></o:p>On
3 March 1992, judgment was given in favour of the plaintiff. The defendant being
dissatisfied with the judgment, appealed on a number of grounds. However, on
the appeal coming for hearing, counsel abandoned all the other grounds and
rested his case on Ground One and two of the additional grounds. His criticism
of the judgment was that the learned trial judge failed to fix the appropriate
cedi rate at which the sum of £G10 was to be converted. He therefore asked that
we fix the rate at ¢2 to the pound.<o:p></o:p>What
is the basis for saying so? He contended that if we looked at the Bank of Ghana
Act 1963 (Act 182) s 13, we would discover that at the date probate was
granted, that Ghana pound which was then legal tender in Ghana was to be
replaced by the cedi at the exchange rate of ¢2. He urged therefore that since
under the will the plaintiff was entitled only to £G10, what he was legally
entitled to when it became due, ie when probate was granted, was ¢20.<o:p></o:p>I
find it difficult to accept his argument. Quite apart from it not being
warranted by law, it is unjust, unreasonable and unconscionable. Given the
present state of our currency laws, I think that where a party puts in a claim
for a certain sum of money in foreign currency and prays alternatively for the
equivalent in local currency, in the absence of any agreement to the contrary,
the rate of exchange that should be applied would be the forex bureau rate.
That rate is legal and does give a true picture of the local currency
equivalent of the foreign currency in question.<o:p></o:p>What
the poor plaintiff is entitled to therefore is £G10 as at the date of judgment.
Certainly if the defendant cannot put £G10 into his hands, he ought to place
into his hands at least such amount in cedis, which in our financial market
would give him nothing less than £G10. To do otherwise, i.e. to put such cedis
as would fetch him less than £G10, would amount to robbing him of his
entitlement. Consequently, much as I agree that the learned trial judge omitted
to spell out the rate of exchange, the correct rate of exchange should be the
forex bureau rate as at 3 March 1992.<o:p></o:p>The
next complaint against the judgment is that the learned judge erred in awarding
interest from the date the £G10 became due to the date of judgment. Counsel’s
contention is that interest ought to be calculated at simple, not compound,
interest and, more importantly, at the rate existing for each specific year. So
that if the rate existing in, say 1963 or 1964, was 1% per annum that was the
rate that ought to be used; and should that rate have increased to 5% the
following year that would be the rate at which interest ought to be calculated.<o:p></o:p>Again,
I do not agree with counsel. For in liquidated claims, interest is awarded in
compliance with the Courts (Award of Interest) Instrument 1984 (LI 1295). By
this Instrument, interest is worked out at the same rate from the date when the
amount became due to the date of the judgment or order. Consequently, the judge
was right in concerning himself with the prevailing bank rate on the principal
sum or its equivalent in cedis from the date that the amount became due to date
of judgment. I however agree with learned counsel that this is to be calculated
at simple and not compound interest. In the result, subject to the order that
the cedi equivalent of the sum of £G10 shall be calculable at the forex bureau
rate prevailing at the date of judgment and subject also to the order that
interest be awarded at simple interest, I would dismiss the appeal.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>ESSIEM JA. I
AGREE.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>AMUAH JA. I
AGREE.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>

<o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></main>