AMPOFO TWUMASI ANKRAH vs. NOBLE DREAM FINANCIAL SERVICES. [2015]DLHC3526

Date	2015-03-13
Suit No.	SUIT NO.BFS/116/15
Citation No.	[2015]DLHC3526

HER LADYSHIP ANGELINA MENSAH-HOMIAH (MRS.) JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT

ALFRED ANIM QUARSHIE FOR THE PLAINTIFF

KWASI ADU- MANTE FOR THE DEFENDANT

[2015]DLHC3526
																																						<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" ><a name="OLE_LINK1">AMPOFO TWUMASI ANKRAH<o:p></o:p></a>vs.<o:p></o:p>NOBLE
DREAM FINANCIAL SERVICES.<o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT
(COMMERCIAL DIVISION), KUMASI]<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">

SUIT
NO.BFS/116/15&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; &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: 13TH
MARCH, 2015<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>ALFRED ANIM
QUARSHIE FOR THE PLAINTIFF <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">

KWASI ADU- MANTE
FOR THE DEFENDANT<o:p></o:p>

HER LADYSHIP ANGELINA MENSAH-HOMIAH (MRS.) JUSTICE
OF THE HIGH COURT<o:p></o:p>

JUDGEMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Arial Unicode MS&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Arial Unicode MS&quot;;
mso-ansi-language:EN-US">The Plaintiff in this suit commenced an action against
the Defendant for the recovery of the sum of GH¢111,500.00 and interest
thereon. <o:p></o:p><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Arial Unicode MS&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Arial Unicode MS&quot;;
mso-ansi-language:EN-US">It is the Plaintiff’s case that the amount being
claimed represents the total investment deposits which he made with the
Defendant financial institution, but the Defendant has refused to honour his
requests for the withdrawal of the same.<o:p></o:p><span style="font-size:12.0pt;
line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;mso-fareast-font-family:
&quot;Arial Unicode MS&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Arial Unicode MS&quot;;mso-ansi-language:
EN-US">The Defendant’s case is that the Plaintiff has never been its customer
and the company does not owe him in any way. <o:p></o:p><span style="font-size:12.0pt;
line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;mso-fareast-font-family:
&quot;Arial Unicode MS&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Arial Unicode MS&quot;;mso-ansi-language:
EN-US">The main issue for determination is whether or not the Defendant
Financial Institution is indebted to the Plaintiff in the sum of &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;GH¢111,500.00? To resolve this
issue effectively, the court must first determine whether the Plaintiff
invested or deposited any money in the Defendant Company and second, whether
the Plaintiff is, or was, a customer of the Defendant. <o:p></o:p><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Arial Unicode MS&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Arial Unicode MS&quot;;
mso-ansi-language:EN-US">Counsel for the Defendant who was present when a date
was fixed for the trial to commence, failed to attend court on the scheduled
date. &nbsp;Thus, the Plaintiff was allowed to
proof his case under Order 36 rule (1) (2) (a) of the High Court (Civil
Procedure) Rules, 2004 C.I. 47. It reads:<o:p></o:p><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Arial Unicode MS&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Arial Unicode MS&quot;;
mso-ansi-language:EN-US">Rule (1) (2)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 
where an action is called for trial and a party fails to attend, the trial
judge may:<o:p></o:p><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Arial Unicode MS&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Arial Unicode MS&quot;;
mso-ansi-language:EN-US">Where the Plaintiff attends and the defendant fails to
attend, dismiss the counterclaim, if any, and allow the plaintiff to prove the
claim.<o:p></o:p><span style="font-size:12.0pt;
line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;mso-fareast-font-family:
&quot;Arial Unicode MS&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Arial Unicode MS&quot;;mso-ansi-language:
EN-US">It is the duty of the Plaintiff to prove his case to the required
standard in civil suits. That is, by the preponderance of the probabilities.
See sections 11(4) and 12 of the Evidence Act, 1975 NRCD 323. The fact that the
Defendant elected not to participate in this trial does not take away the
Plaintiff’s burden of proof. <o:p></o:p><span style="font-size:12.0pt;
line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;mso-fareast-font-family:
&quot;Arial Unicode MS&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Arial Unicode MS&quot;;mso-ansi-language:
EN-US">A case in point is <span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;
line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;mso-fareast-font-family:
&quot;Arial Unicode MS&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Arial Unicode MS&quot;">Takoradi Flour
Mills v Samir Faris<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;
line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;mso-fareast-font-family:
&quot;Arial Unicode MS&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Arial Unicode MS&quot;"> (2005-2006) SCGLR
882 at 884 where the court held&nbsp; as
follows (holding 5):<o:p></o:p><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Arial Unicode MS&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Arial Unicode MS&quot;">“
It is sufficient to state that this being a civil suit, the rules of evidence
require that the plaintiff produces sufficient evidence to make out his claim
on a preponderance of probabilities, as defined in section 12(2) of the
Evidence Decree, 1975 ( NRCD 323). In assessing the balance of probabilities,
all the evidence, be it that of the plaintiff or the defendant must be
considered and the party in whose favour the balance tilts is the person whose
case is the more probab</main>