LINDA LYDIA APPIAGYEI vs. NOBLE DREAM FINANCIAL SERVICES [2016]DLHC3816

Date	2016-03-23
Suit No.	SUIT NO.BFS/207/15
Citation No.	[2016]DLHC3816

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

DIANA ADU DANQUAH FOR PLAINTIFF

KWASI ADU MANTE FOR DEFENDANT.

[2016]DLHC3816
																																						<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" >LINDA LYDIA APPIAGYEI<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>NOBLE DREAM FINANCIAL
SERVICES<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 NO.BFS/207/15&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;DATE: 23RD MARCH, 2016<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>DIANA ADU DANQUAH FOR
PLAINTIFF&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">

KWASI
ADU MANTE FOR DEFENDANT.<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">

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>On
20/02/2015, the Plaintiff herein instituted the instant action against Noble
Dream Financial Services Limited for the Recovery of the sum of GH¢38,675.00
plus interest at the rate of 10.5% per 91 days from 15th January,
2014 till date of final payment.<o:p></o:p>The
Plaintiff's case is simple and straight forward. She alleged that on
14/10/2013, she invested a total amount of GH¢38,675.00 with the Defendants at
an interest rate of 10.50% for 91 days and she was given a certificate of
investment to that effect. The Plaintiff further asserted that the Defendant
has failed to repay the money together with the accrued interest since the
maturity of the investment on 15/01/2014. <o:p></o:p>By
its statement of defence filed on 13/3/15, the Defendant admitted that the
Plaintiff is its customer but reiterated that the Plaintiff invested her money
in the capital market but not in the Defendant's products. The Defendant also
averred that the economic down turn of the Ghanaian economy is the reason for
its inability to repay the Plaintiff and that it is not under any obligation to
repay the Plaintiff's lost investment.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;The
Court has been invited to determine two issues: (i) whether or not the
Plaintiff authorized the defendant to invest her money in the capital Market?
and (ii) whether or not the Defendant is indebted to the Plaintiff?<o:p></o:p>From
the pleadings, the evidential burden as well as the burden of persuasion of the
first issue rests on the Defendant who averred that the Plaintiff invested her
money in the capital market but not in the defendant's products. This assertion
was denied by the Plaintiff. <o:p></o:p>Based
on the provisions of sections 11(4), 12(1) &amp; (2) of the Evidence Act, 1975
NRCD 323, the Defendant must lead credible <o:p></o:p>evidence
from which the court can find on the balance of probabilities that its
assertion is more probable than not. This degree and standard of proof has been
applied in several cases.&nbsp; These include Majolagbe
v Larbi (1959) GLR 190 at 192; Zambrama V Segbedzie (1991) 2 GLR 221;Yaa Kwesi
v Arhin Davis(2007/08) SCGLR 580; Sarkodie v FKA Co. Ltd. (2009) SCGLR 65
holding 1 and Abbey v Antwi (2010) SCGLR 17 at 19 (holding 2).<o:p></o:p>The
Defendant Company failed to file its witness statement as ordered by the court
on 30/10/2015. On 04/02/2016, the court granted the Defendant an extension of
time to file its witness statement by 09/02/2016. Even though counsel for the
Defendant was present in Court when that order was made, the Defendant did not
file any witness statement. On 17/02/2016 when the trial commenced, Counsel for
the Defendant only cross-examined the Plaintiff on her witness statement which
she relied on in Court.<o:p></o:p>The
law is that a defendant may choose not to give evidence but when that happens,
the court will be left with only the evidence of the Plaintiff to evaluate.
Thus, Brobbey JSC&nbsp; in &nbsp;Re
Ashalley Botwe <o:p></o:p>Lands; Adjetey Agbosu &amp; Ors v Kotey &amp; Ors (
2003-2004) SCGLR 420 made the following observation as regards the burden
of proof:<o:p></o:p>