FRANCIS K. BARIMA KUFFOUR vs. NOBLE DREAM MICRO FINANCE LTD. [2016]DLHC3778

Date	2016-03-23
Suit No.	SUIT NO.BFS/199/15
Citation No.	[2016]DLHC3778

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

AKUA ADOMA ADDAI FOR PLAINTIFF

KWASI ADU MANTE FOR DEFENDANT

[2016]DLHC3778
																																						<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">FRANCIS
K. BARIMA KUFFOUR<o:p></o:p></a>vs.<o:p></o:p>NOBLE DREAM MICRO FINANCE LTD.<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/199/15&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; &nbsp;&nbsp;DATE: 23RD MARCH, 2016<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>AKUA
ADOMA ADDAI 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">

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

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">

JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>This
action for the recovery of the sum of GH¢ 49, 725.11 arose from a Micro
Finance/Customer relationship whereby the Plaintiff allegedly invested his
money with the Defendant for a specified period subject to terms. The Plaintiff
is also asking for interest on the amount said to have been invested and
damages for breach of contract.<o:p></o:p>In
his statement of claim filed on 13/02/2015, the Plaintiff asserted that on
27/12/2012, he invested an amount of GH¢20,000.00 with the Defendant for a
period of 182 days at an interest rate of 18% per investment period.&nbsp; On the maturity date of 27/06/2013, the
Plaintiff averred that he rolled over the principal amount, accrued interest
and topped the investment up with the sum of GH¢ 10,000.00. He also indicated
that he added GH¢9,600.00 to the amount invested earlier and that brought his
total investment to GH¢ 45,000.00. His case is that the Defendant failed to
repay his money on the agreed terms upon maturity and has continuously refused
to do so.<o:p></o:p>The
Defence put up by the Defendant is that the Plaintiff made an informed decision
to invest his money in the Capital Market but not in the Defendant's products.
As such, the Defendant averred that it is not under any obligation to repay the
Plaintiff's lost investments.<o:p></o:p>The
main issue for determination is whether or not the Plaintiff invested in
Defendant's Products or in the Capital Market.<o:p></o:p>To
determine this issue, the court is enjoined to weigh the evidence adduced by
both parties on the balance of probabilities and find whose case is deserving
of a favourable verdict. This principle of proof in civil suits has its basis
on sections 11(4) and 12 of the Evidence Act 1975, NRCD 323 which states as
follows:<o:p></o:p>Sec. 11(4):<o:p></o:p>In other
circumstances the burden of producing evidence requires a party to produce sufficient
evidence which on the totality of the evidence, leads a reasonable mind to
conclude that the existence of the fact was more probable than its non-existence.<o:p></o:p>Sec.12.&nbsp;&nbsp; Proof by a preponderance of the
probabilities <o:p></o:p>(1)&nbsp; Except as otherwise provided by law, the
burden of persuasion requires proof by a preponderance of the probabilities. <o:p></o:p>(2)&nbsp; “Preponderance of the probabilities” means
that degree of certainty of belief in the mind of the tribunal of fact or the Court
by which it is convinced that the existence of a fact is more probable than its
non-existence.<o:p></o:p>In
so doing, all the evidence on record must be considered, be it that of the
Plaintiff or the Defendant. Indeed, Ansah JSC explained the principle in the
case of Takoradi Flour Mills v Samir Farris&nbsp;
(2005/2006) SCGLR 883 as follows:<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; "
A tribunal of fact can decide an issue on the evidence of only one party. A
bare assertion on oath by a single witness might in the proper circumstances of
a case be enough to form the basis of a judicial decision. The essential thing
is that the witness is credible by the standards set in section 80(2) of the
Evidence Decree, 1975... The adjudicator has the whole of the oral evidence of
the party and the documents tendered in evidence, if any, before him to
consider for his decision".<o:p></o:p>At
page 884 (holding 5), the Court stated further as indicated below:<o:p></o:p>