CECILIA OWUSU ANSAH & LINDA ADU-GYAMFI vs. FIRST ALLIED SAVINGS & LOANS LTD [2018]DLHC9322

Date	2018-11-28
Suit No.	SUIT NO. RPC 05/2019
Citation No.	[2018]DLHC9322

HIS LORDSHIP JUSTICE DR. RICHMOND OSEI-HWERE

MATILDA KWARTENG FOR THE PLAINTIFF

[2018]DLHC9322
																																						<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" >CECILIA OWUSU ANSAH &amp; LINDA ADU-GYAMFI<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFFS)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>FIRST ALLIED SAVINGS &amp; LOANS LTD<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANT)<o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT,
KUMASI]<o:p></o:p><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;line-height:normal;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">SUIT
NO. RPC 05/2019&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &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: 28TH NOVEMBER 2018<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<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">

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:
justify;line-height:normal;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">MATILDA KWARTENG FOR THE PLAINTIFF<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:<o:p></o:p>HIS
LORDSHIP JUSTICE DR. RICHMOND OSEI-HWERE<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border-top:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
border-left:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;border-right:none;
padding:1.0pt 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

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

</div>The Plaintiffs’ claim
against the Defendant was for the following reliefs:<o:p></o:p>a.
Recovery of the amount of GHC<a name="_Hlk531090191">58,054.05 </a>being their investment
plus accrued interest.<o:p></o:p>b.
Interest on the amount invested plus date of final payment.<o:p></o:p>c.
General Damages.<o:p></o:p>d.
Cost.<o:p></o:p>On
2nd November, 2018 the court entered interlocutory judgment in
favour of the Plaintiffs for recovery of the sum of GHC58,054.05 plus interest
on the amount till date of final payment. The suit was, however, adjourned for
assessment of damages and the determination of costs.<o:p></o:p>The
law is that general damages lie for every infringement of an absolute right.
The Supreme Court held in the case of Delmas Agency Ghana Ltd v Food
Distributors International Ltd [2007/2008] SCGLR 748, 760 thus:<o:p></o:p>‘‘General damages is such as
the law will presume to be the probable or natural consequences of the
defendant’s act. It arises by inference of law and therefore need not be proved
by evidence. The law implies general damages in every infringement of an
absolute right. The catch is that only general damages are awarded.<o:p></o:p>Where a plaintiff has
suffered a properly quantifiable loss, he must plead specifically his loss and
prove it strictly. If he does not he is not entitled to anything unless general
damages are also appropriate.’’<o:p></o:p>The
1st Plaintiff testified on her own behalf and on behalf of the 2nd
Plaintiff. She told the court that upon maturity of their investment, they went
to the defendant for their money but the defendant could not fulfill its
promise. According to the 1st plaintiff, she needed money to pay for
her children’s school fees and was compelled to borrow money for that purpose.
She also told the court that she needed money to continue with the construction
of her house but because of the default she could not do so and presently, the
prices of building materials have gone up. She added that the default has also
affected the 2nd defendant’s business, as she has no means to refill
her stock.<o:p></o:p>The
Plaintiffs per their reliefs stated in no uncertain terms that their claim was
for general damages not special damages. The evidence led suggests that they
indeed suffered a quantifiable loss albeit no better particulars of the loss
were provided. For instance, the loan sum allegedly procured for payment of
school fees as well as the interest thereon were not provided. Be that as it
may, since general damages lie when there is an infringement of an absolute
right, the plaintiffs are entitled to the same.<o:p></o:p>Consequently,
I award damages of GHC 8,000.00 against the defendant and in favour of the
plaintiffs. I also award costs of GHC 6,000 in favour of the plaintiffs.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;SGD.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</main>