MATHIAS ANYUISAH vs. BULSA COMMUNITY BANK LIMITED [2017]DLHC8197

Date	2017-03-15
Suit No.	SUIT NO: C3/02/2012
Citation No.	[2017]DLHC8197

HIS LORDSHIP JUSTICE JACOB B. BOON

FRANK AKYEAMPONG FOR E.K. MUSAH FOR THE PLAINTIFF

AMOAK AFOKO FOR THE DEFENDANT

[2017]DLHC8197
																																						<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" >MATHIAS
ANYUISAH<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>BULSA
COMMUNITY BANK LIMITED<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>[HIGH COURT,
BOLGATANGA]<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

SUIT
NO: C3/02/2012&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &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: 15TH MARCH, 2017<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>FRANK
AKYEAMPONG FOR E.K. MUSAH FOR THE PLAINTIFF<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

AMOAK
AFOKO FOR THE 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:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

HIS LORDSHIP JUSTICE JACOB B. BOON<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:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
text-align:center;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>In
this suit, the heart of the matter is a cheque issued by one Abakisi Rudolf
Brown, a customer of Bulsa Community Bank which is the defendant herein. Abakisi
Rudolf Brown is hereafter referred to in this judgment as the customer. The
defendant is a community bank, registered under the laws of Ghana. It renders
financial services to the general public and is principally located at Sandema
in the Upper East Region. For ease of reference, it will be called the
defendant bank hereafter. The disputed cheque was given to the plaintiff to be
cashed on behalf of the customer. Until his summary dismissal on the authority
of the board of directors of the defendant, the plaintiff was a chief cashier
at the defendant bank. It is material, at this juncture, to be placed on record
that the customer is now deceased. According to the plaintiff, the customer had
taken him as his son because his father was the customer’s family friend. In
appreciation, plaintiff said he also regarded the customer as a father who
normally invited him to his house and signed cheques for him to cash at the
defendant bank on his behalf. It is against this background that on 21st July,
2011, plaintiff was, as usual, invited by the customer and instructed to write
out the disputed cheque which was signed by the customer and given to the
plaintiff to be cashed. A fundamental issue in this judgment is the original amount
on the cheque, and whether or not it was altered. Whilst the plaintiff said the
cheque was written for GH¢350.00, it was presented on behalf of the customer
that it had an original value of GH¢200.00 but plaintiff altered the amount to
read GH¢350.00 which was withdrawn from the account of the customer and only
GH¢200.00 presented to him who had no idea then that his account had been
debited with GH¢350.00 instead of GH¢200.00. According to the Operations
Manager of defendant, one Abuga Musah Mohammed, on 26th July, 2011,
the customer came to the bank intending to make another withdrawal from his
account but it was realised it did not have sufficient funds&nbsp; to meet that withdrawal. The situation
surprised the customer who insisted the last withdrawal from his account was
only GH¢200.00 after payment of his monthly pension money into it. The
accountant at the bank then verified the customer’s account and it came to
light that the last withdrawal from it was GH¢350.00 and not GH¢200.00. As it
appeared the customer was not satisfied with the explanation, the accountant
called for the last cheque drawn against the account. It was shown as number
000095, dated 21st July 2011 for GH¢350.00. The original was tendered
in evidence by the defendant and marked as exhibit “1”, while a photocopy was
earlier put in evidence as exhibit “D” by the plaintiff. A statement of the
account of the customer is also in evidence as exhibit “2” which confirmed the
cheque was cashed on 21st July, 2011. When these details were
brought to the attention of the customer, he was resolute, according to the
evidence led on behalf of the defendant, that he authorised the plaintiff to
write out the cheque for GH¢200.00 and not GH¢350.00. &nbsp;At this time, the plaintiff was not present at
the bank hence the matter was referred to the Assistant Manager of the defendant
bank, one Hayatudeen Awudu Ibrahim, to make further enquiries. When the
Assistant Manager contacted the plaintiff for his side of the story, he was
emphatic he was instructed by the customer to write the cheque for GH¢350.00, which
he did, in the presence of the customer who signed it and released it to him
for payment. He said he cashed it but when he presented the money to the
customer, he gave him GH¢150.00 out of it, in ten cedi denominations, to be
changed to smaller notes. Not satisfied with this explanation, the defendant
queried him through a letter marked as exhibits “E” and “5”, tendered by
plaintiff and defendant respectively. Among other allegations, the exhibit
indicated that the plaintiff altered the amount on the cheque to read GH¢350.00
instead of GH¢200.00; that of the GH¢350.00, plaintiff gave GH¢200.00 to the
customer but later handed over the difference of GH¢150.00 when the customer
threatened to lodge an official report against him with the police. <o:p></o:p>Plaintiff
responded to exhibit “E” and his response is in evidence, marked as exhibit “F”.
He denied altering the cheque which he said was written by him in the presence
of the customer, on his instructions, for a face value of GH¢350.00, and to
facilitate its payment, the customer signed at the space reserved for his
signature, and endorsed the back of it. I have noticed the signature of the
customer on both the front and back of the cheque. That fact is not disputed.
The alleged altering of the cheque will be discussed in detail later in the
judgment.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;According to the plaintiff, notwithstanding
his denial of any wrong doing, he was interdicted by the defendant and ordered
to appear before a disciplinary committee put up by the defendant, chaired by
one Edward K. Atagabe who also served, at the time, as the Board Chairman of
the defendant. He said he dutifully appeared before the committee on 14th
October, 2011, but to his surprise and dismay, the customer was not present to
enable them confront each other on the issues at stake. He stated the gravamen
of his case in paragraphs 25 to 32 of the amended statement of claim filed on
23rd August, 2012. For the sake of clarity, I hereby reproduce the relevant
paragraphs hereunder:<o:p></o:p>25:&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The plaintiff denied the allegation of
forgery levelled against him before the committee but the com</main>