SAMPSON XEPONU TOMMEY vs. STANDARD CHARTERED BANK GHANA LTD [2018]DLHC3351

Date	2018-07-31
Suit No.	CIVIL APPEAL NO.CM/0227/2016
Citation No.	[2018]DLHC3351

SAMUEL K. A. ASIEDU JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT

EMMANUEL DARKWA ESQ. FOR DEFENDANT.

NII OMAN BADOO ESQ. FOR PLAINTIFF.

[2018]DLHC3351
																																						<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" >SAMPSON XEPONU TOMMEY<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>STANDARD CHARTERED BANK
GHANA LTD<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;[HIGH COURT (COMMERCIAL
DIVISION), ACCRA]<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">

CIVIL APPEAL NO.CM/0227/2016&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &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: 31ST
JULY, 2018<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>EMMANUEL DARKWA ESQ., FOR
DEFENDANT.<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">

</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><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>In
March 2013 judgment was entered for the plaintiff against the defendant herein
for reliefs in Suit No. BFS/451/2010 which the plaintiff had taken out against
the defendant. The plaintiff alleges that in the judgment given in Suit No. BFS/451/2010 no order was made about a
$10,000.00 Treasury Bill investment he had with the defendant because the
defendant had admitted, in its pleading before the court, that the said
$10,000.00 Treasury Bill investment was still rolling over on a 91 day basis.
The plaintiff says that after the delivery of the judgment, he has made several
but fruitless efforts to be given not only a statement on the investment but
also to enable him access the said investment together with interest accrued
thereon. The plaintiff therefore issued the instant writ against the defendant
for: <o:p></o:p>a. An order directed at the Defendant to furnish
the Plaintiff with a full statement of account on his USD10,000.00 or its
equivalent invested in 91 day Treasury Bill from the 2nd day of February 2009
till the final date of payment.<o:p></o:p>b. An order appointing an independent
Auditor/Accountant to reconcile Plaintiff’s accounts with the Defendant on his
USD10,000.00 or its equivalent invested in 91 day Treasury Bill (including
application of agreed interest rates on the said investment and reversal of
incorrect charges.<o:p></o:p>c. An order directed at the Defendant to pay all
sums ascertained by the independent Auditor/Accountant to be due the Plaintiff
together with any interest on same until the final date of payment.<o:p></o:p>d. General Damages for the inconvenience caused
Plaintiff <o:p></o:p>e. A further order against the Defendant to pay
costs and the legal expenses of the Plaintiff in this suit.<o:p></o:p>The
defendant has denied holding the said $10,000.00 Treasury Bill investment presently
because, according to the defendant, the plaintiff requested the defendant to
stop the roll-over of the investment which the defendant, accordingly, obliged
after which the said amount was credited to the plaintiff’s account and a
statement made available to the plaintiff upon demand. <o:p></o:p>From
the pleadings therefore, the following issues stand out for determination by
the court. First, whether or not subsequent to the judgment in Suit No. BFS/451/2010 the plaintiff requested the
defendant to stop the roll-over of the $10,000.00 Treasury Bill investment.
Second, whether or not the defendant carried out the plaintiff’s instructions
with respect to the stoppage of the investment and credited the plaintiff’s
account with the sum of the investment. Third, whether or not the defendant
furnished the plaintiff with a bank statement on his account upon demand by the
plaintiff. Finally, the court ought to decide whether or not the plaintiff is
entitled to his claims against the defendant herein.<o:p></o:p>From
the pleadings, the court finds that the fact that the plaintiff is a customer
of the defendant bank and that the plaintiff sometime in October 2008
instructed the defendant to purchase a $10,000.00 or its cedi equivalent Treasury
Bill on behalf of the plaintiff is not denied. Indeed, the plaintiff pleaded
this fact in paragraph 4 of his statement of claim and the same was admitted by
the defendant in paragraph 3 of its statement of defence.<o:p></o:p>Further,
the fact that the defendant purchased a $10,000.00 or its cedi equivalent Treasury
Bill on behalf of the plaintiff is clearly stated by the defendant in paragraph
5 of the defendant’s statement of defence. <o:p></o:p>In
paragraph 7 of its witness statement, the defendant testified that after the
plaintiff had instructed it to </main>