STANDARD BANK OFFSHORE TRUST CO. LTD. AND TRICON TRAKE MANAGEMENT LTD (SUBSTITUTED BY DOMINION CORPORATE TRUSTEES LTD.) (PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT) vs. NATIONAL INVESTMENT BANK LTD, ELAND INTERNATIONAL GH. LTD. AND DANIEL CHARLES GYIMAH [2015]DLCA8422

STANDARD BANK OFFSHORE TRUST CO. LTD. AND TRICON TRAKE MANAGEMENT LTD (SUBSTITUT... [2015]DLCA8422

Date	2015-10-15
Suit No.	CIVIL SUIT: NO: H1/37/2014
Citation No.	[2015]DLCA8422

M. OWUSU (J.A.) – PRESIDING

OFOE (J.A.)

TORKORNOO (J.A.)

MRS. VICTORIA BARTH FOR THE PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT

MR. DICK ANYADI FOR THE DEFENDANT/APPELLANT

MR. KWAKU ASIRIFI FOR 3RD RESPONDENTS

[2015]DLCA8422
																																						<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" >STANDARD BANK OFFSHORE TRUST CO. LTD. AND TRICON TRAKE
MANAGEMENT LTD (SUBSTITUTED BY DOMINION CORPORATE TRUSTEES LTD.)<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>NATIONAL INVESTMENT BANK LTD, ELAND INTERNATIONAL GH. LTD. AND
DANIEL CHARLES GYIMAH<o:p></o:p>(2ND
&amp; 3RD DEFENDANTS/ RESPONDENTS)<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>[COURT OF APPEAL, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

CIVIL SUIT: NO:&nbsp; H1/37/2014&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: 15TH OCT, 2015<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>MRS. VICTORIA BARTH FOR THE PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT<o:p></o:p>MR. DICK ANYADI FOR THE DEFENDANT/APPELLANT<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

MR.
KWAKU ASIRIFI FOR 3RD RESPONDENTS <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:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

M. OWUSU (J.A.) – PRESIDING, OFOE (J.A.),
TORKORNOO (J.A.)<o:p></o:p>

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

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
text-align:center;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>MARIAMA OWUSU, J.A.:<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>“The Rule
in Turquand’s” case or the “Indoor
Management Rule” is that, a person dealing with a company was entitled to
assume, in the absence of facts putting him on notice or inquiry, that there
had been due compliance with all matters of internal management and procedure
required by the regulations of the company. &nbsp;This rule had been codified in Sections
139-143 of our Company’s Code, 1963 (Act 179) and under Section 142 (2) of Act 179, if the
company had held out someone as its agent, it would be estopped from denying
the appointment; and a de jure or de facto officer of the company could be
assumed to have the usual powers and duties of that sort of officer.”<o:p></o:p>See the case of Godka Group of Companies vrs. P.
S. International Ltd. (2001-2002) SCGLR 918, 922 holding (6) which had
quoted with approval the English case of Royal British Bank vrs. Turquand [1843-60]
ALL ER Rep 435.&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>The facts of this case admit no
controversy.&nbsp; The 1st
defendant/appellant (NIB) through its then Managing Director Mr. Daniel Charles
Gyimah guaranteed per Aval thirty (30) Promissory Notes issued by the 2nd
defendant to mature on 21-1-2009.&nbsp; The promissory
notes were subsequently discounted through Iroko Securities Limited of the
United Kingdom to investors, Sphynx Capital Market PCC and others represented
by the plaintiff/respondent as trustee in this suit.<o:p></o:p>The proceeds of the discounted notes in the
sum of US$45,412,790,000 were paid in two tranches on 24-5-2007 and 15-6-2007 into
Ghana International Bank, London in favour of the 1st
defendant/appellant.<o:p></o:p>In January 2009, the promissory notes
matured.&nbsp; When the plaintiff/respondent
contacted Ghana International Bank, London which was the 1st
defendant’s correspondent bank in the United Kingdom and requested for payment,
the request was turned down because no funds were available for payment.<o:p></o:p>The plaintiff subsequently made direct demand
on the 1st defendant/appellant.&nbsp;
This demand was dishonoured as management of the latter informed
plaintiff/respondent that it had no knowledge about the existence of the notes
nor the guarantee per Aval executed on its behalf by its Managing Director, the
3rd defendant in the case.&nbsp;
After offering its copies of the documents on the transaction to 1st
defendant/appellant to study and several demands for payment yielded no
positive result, the plaintiff/respondent mounted the action which has resulted
in the instant appeal.<o:p></o:p>The 1st defendant/appellant in its
statement of defence and counterclaim denied plaintiff/respondent’s claim of
its indebtedness to the plaintiff/respondent.&nbsp;
In particular, the 1st defendant/appellant averred that it
did not guarantee any promissory notes issued by the 2nd defendant,
nor has it confirmed any alleged guarantee nor held the 3rd
defendant out as having the sole authority or th</main>