FRANCISCA POKU OPPONG vs. NOBLE DREAM FINANCIAL SERVICES [2015]DLHC3542

Date	2015-04-04
Suit No.	SUIT NO.BFS/95/15
Citation No.	[2015]DLHC3542

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

WILLIAM ASAMOAH SARPONG FOR THE PLAINTIFF.

[2015]DLHC3542
																																						<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" >FRANCISCA POKU OPPONG<o:p></o:p>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/95/15&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;DATE:
4TH APRIL, 2015<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:&nbsp;&nbsp; <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">

WILLIAM
ASAMOAH SARPONG FOR THE PLAINTIFF.<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">

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

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

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

</div>Noble
Dream Financial Services Ltd has been sued by the Plaintiff herein for the
recovery of the sum of Twenty-Four Thousand, Four hundred and twenty Ghana
Cedis, Fifty pesewas ( GH¢24, 420.50) being the investment made by the
Plaintiff in the Defendant Company.<o:p></o:p>The
Plaintiff’s case is concise. She invested an amount of GH¢ 22,100.00 for a
period of 91 days at an interest rate of 10.5%. However, the Defendant failed
to pay back her money upon&nbsp;&nbsp; maturity of
the investment.<o:p></o:p>The
Defendant also put up a terse defence to the effect that the Plaintiff has
never been its customer. The Defendant denied any dealings whatsoever with the
Plaintiff and stated that the company is not indebted to her.<o:p></o:p>For
the determination of this case, two issues were set down for trial, namely, (i)
Whether or not the Plaintiff is a customer of the Defendant Financial
Institution? And (ii) whether or not the Plaintiff is entitled to her claim.<o:p></o:p>Counsel
for the Defendant who was in court on 04/03/2015 when a date was fixed for the
trial to commence on 23/03/2015, failed to attend court on the scheduled date.&nbsp; Thus, the Plaintiff was allowed to proof her
case under Order <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">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;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&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<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">.<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">&nbsp;As is always the case in all
civil suits, it is the duty of a party who has made positive assertions which
have been denied to lead evidence to prove his or her case by the preponderance
of the probabilities. See sections 11(4) and 12 of the Evidence Act, 1975 NRCD
323. In the instant action, the Defendant elected not to participate in this
trial but that does not imply that judgment be given in favour of the Plaintiff
without convincing proof of her case. The Plaintiff must therefore prove
her&nbsp;&nbsp; case as required by law. <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">In Takoradi<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;"> Flour Mills v Samir Faris (2005-2006)
SCGLR 882 at 884 the court held 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 probable of the rival versions and is deserving of a
favourable verdict.” See also Adwubeng v Domfeh &nbsp; [1996-97] SCGLR 660.<o:p></o:p></</main>