KWAME OHENE vs. NOBLE DREAM MICRO FINANCE LTD. [2015]DLHC3548

Date	2015-10-07
Suit No.	SUIT NO.RPC/160/15
Citation No.	[2015]DLHC3548

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

FREDRICK KANKAM FOR PLAINTIFF.

KWASI ADU MANTE FOR DEFENDANT.

[2015]DLHC3548
																																						<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" >KWAME OHENE<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>NOBLE DREAM MICRO
FINANCE LTD.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;[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 &nbsp;NO.RPC/160/15&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;DATE: 7TH OCTOBER, 2015<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>FREDRICK KANKAM FOR
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">

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">

</div>This is one of hundreds of
suits that have been filed against Noble Dream Micro Finance Limited by
aggrieved patrons. Ordinarily, I should be talking about "customers"
but&nbsp; for good reasons, I have refrained
from using that word for now. <o:p></o:p>In the instant case, the
Plaintiff is seeking re-payment of the principal amount invested in the
Defendant Company plus the accrued interest. The Defendant also says that the
Plaintiff was advised on the volatility of the Capital market. Yet, he chose to
invest his money in the capital market and has thereby lost his investment. It
is the Defendant's case that it is not under any obligation to re-pay the
Plaintiff's lost investment. These assertions were denied by the Plaintiff in
his reply. He maintained that he entered into a contract with the Defendant
company only and the company is bound to re-pay his money together with the
accrued interest as agreed upon.<o:p></o:p>After unsuccessful
attempts at resolving this matter, issues were set down for trial, namely:<o:p></o:p>1.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Whether
or not the Plaintiff is a customer of the Defendant Financial Institution?<o:p></o:p>2.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Whether
or not the Plaintiff invested GH¢70,800.00 in the Defendant's Institution?<o:p></o:p>3.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Whether
or not the Plaintiff is entitled to his claim?<o:p></o:p>On 11/06/2015, the Plaintiff&nbsp; opened his case and led evidence to discharge
the burden of proof imposed on him by sections &nbsp;11(1) and 11(4) of the Evidence Act, 1975 NRCD
323. In short, the Plaintiff is required to introduce evidence which makes his
assertions more probable than not when the entire evidence is assessed so as to
avoid a ruling against him. This standard of proof has been applied in several
cases. Notable among them are Zambrama v Segbedzi (1991) 2 GLR 221 CA; Adwubeng
v Domfeh (1996-97) SCGLR 660;&nbsp; Takoradi Flour Mills v Samir Faris
(2005-2006) SCGLR 883; Yaa Kwesi v Arhin Davis (
2007-2008) SCGLR 580; and Continental
Plastics v IMC Industries- Technik GMBH ( 2009) SCGLR 298 at 307.&nbsp; It is against this laid down standard that
the Plaintiff's case will be measured.<o:p></o:p>The Plaintiff's evidence
was concise. He told the court that he is a retired police officer and that on
01/05/2014, he invested an amount of GH¢ 60,000.00 with the Defendant Company.
He tendered&nbsp</main>