RICHARD BUTT (PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT) vs. BARCLAYS BANK OF GHANA LTD. (DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT) [2008]DLCA7504

RICHARD BUTT (PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT) vs. BARCLAYS BANK OF GHANA LTD. (DEFENDANT/RE... [2008]DLCA7504

Date	2008-05-28
Suit No.	CIVIL APPEAL NO.: H1/124/2006
Citation No.	[2008]DLCA7504

AKAMBA J.A. [PRESIDING]

MARFUL SAU J.A.

YAW APPAU J.A.

MR. ANTHONY AMPAW FOR MR. Y. OPOKU ADJAYE FOR PLAINTIFF/ APPELLANT.

MR. CHARLES HAYIBOR OF HAYIBOR

DJARBENG & CO FOR DEFENDANT/ RESPONDENT.

[2008]DLCA7504
																																						<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" >RICHARD
BUTT<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>BARCLAYS
BANK OF GHANA LTD.<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT)<o:p></o:p>[COURT OF APPEAL, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>CIVIL APPEAL NO.:
H1/124/2006&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; &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:
28TH MAY, 2008<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border-top:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
border-left:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;border-right:none;
padding:1.0pt 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:
115%;tab-stops:53.6pt;border:none;mso-border-top-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:1.0pt 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:
115%;tab-stops:53.6pt;border:none;mso-border-top-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:1.0pt 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">MR.
ANTHONY AMPAW FOR MR. Y. OPOKU ADJAYE FOR PLAINTIFF/ APPELLANT.<o:p></o:p>

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:
115%;tab-stops:53.6pt;border:none;mso-border-top-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:1.0pt 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">MR.
CHARLES HAYIBOR OF HAYIBOR, DJARBENG &amp; CO FOR DEFENDANT/ RESPONDENT.<o:p></o:p>

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

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:
115%;tab-stops:53.6pt;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm;mso-border-between:1.5pt solid windowtext;
mso-padding-between:1.0pt;padding-bottom:1.0pt;mso-padding-bottom-alt:1.0pt;
border-bottom:1.5pt solid windowtext;mso-border-bottom-alt:1.5pt solid windowtext">CORAM:&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; &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;AKAMBA J.A. [PRESIDING],
MARFUL SAU J.A., YAW APPAU J.A.<o:p></o:p>

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
text-align:center;line-height:115%;tab-stops:53.6pt;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:
solid windowtext 1.5pt;padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm;
mso-border-between:1.5pt solid windowtext;mso-padding-between:1.0pt;padding-top:
1.0pt;mso-padding-top-alt:0cm">JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>AKAMBA,
J.A. <o:p></o:p>This
case has very close links with the Supreme Court decision in Richard Butt
vs. Chapel Hill Properties and Devi Charity Butt, Civil Appeal No CA 3/2003 of
21st July 2004 and reported at page 636 of the (2003-2004) Supreme Court of
Ghana Law Reports. Apart from the present defendant/respondent (simply
respondent) not being a party in the earlier proceedings, the facts and persons
involved in this suit are but the same as those in that decision. It is also
evident that the matters which were the subject matter of the Supreme Court
decision as in the present matter took place between 1994 and 1996 hence the
findings of fact are binding on this court. <o:p></o:p>The
Plaintiff/Appellant (simply Appellant), a British national was married to Devi
Charity Butt, a Ghanaian. Whilst the marriage subsisted the Appellant and his
wife became managers of Chapel Hill
Properties Ltd (simply the company) in Takoradi. The company operated an
account with its (respondent’s) Takoradi High Street branch through which
various transactions were conducted. The company’s sole shareholder was Mrs.
Devi Charity Butt. The bank mandate form is a form by which a company issues
instructions for operating its bank accounts. The company submitted a completed
bank opening mandate form on 11th April 1994 to guide its operations and
instructions in respect of its Judgments of the Superior Courts 11494 Copyright
© DataCenta Ltd. account with the respondent. Under the mandate the respondent
was obliged to honour all instructions if signed by the plaintiff and the wife
Devi Charity Butt.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;On 12 October 1995 the Appellant and Mrs. Butt
in apparent consonance with the opening mandate furnished the respondent with
written instructions to the effect that appellant was traveling out of the
country and thereby authorizing the wife Mrs. Devi Charity Butt to be the sole
signatory and to transact business on the company’s account until the
appellant’s return. When the appellant returned from his travel he alone on
13th November 1995 wrote to the respondent instructing them to revert to the
previous account opening mandate. The respondent’s officials refused to comply
with the appellant’s sole instruction viewing it as being contrary to the
mandate held by the respondent and therefore requested appellant to strictly comply
with the mandate. On or about 13th November 1995 Mrs. Butt also notified the
respondent bank that no instructions in respect of the operations of the
company’s bank account should be honoured unless it was countersigned by her in
accordance with the mandate held by the respondent. The trial court on 17th
November 2005 found that the respondent acted properly in refusing to act upon
the sole instruction of the appellant and to have requested for a fresh mandate
upon becoming aware of some dispute regarding the running of the account. It is
evident from the record that in response to a request by the respondent, the
Secretary of Chapel Hill Properties Ltd submitted a new mandate which excluded
the appellant as a signatory to the account. <o:p></o:p>The
court in dismissing the action also concluded that the appellant had failed to
prove the ingredients of the claim based on negligence, that is to say, that
there was a duty of care owed to the appellant by the respondent, which duty
was breached by the respondent, resulting in loss or damages to the appellant.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;The appellant filed the following grounds of
appeal for determination by this court: <o:p></o:p>(1)
The Fast Track High Court erred when it held that a resolution was passed by
the company Chapel Hill Properties Limited to remove the plaintiff from the
mandate upon which resolution the defendant acted when no evidence of such
resolution was produced.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;(2) The court erred when it held that the
defendant did not owe the plaintiff a duty of care when defendant granted the
plaintiff a personal loan of thirty million cedis for the purpose to (sic)
enable the plaintiff pay the difference between one hundred and twenty pounds
that </main>