DANIEL OFORI vs. ECOBANK GHANA LIMITED, SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION AND GHANA STOCK EXCHANGE [2021]DLSC10683

DANIEL OFORI vs. ECOBANK GHANA LIMITED, SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION AND... [2021]DLSC10683

Date	2021-03-24
Suit No.	CIVIL MOTION NO. J7/13/2020
Citation No.	[2021]DLSC10683

YEBOAH CJ (PRESIDING)

DOTSE JSC

BAFFOE-BONNIE JSC

APPAU JSC

PWAMANG JSC

TORKORNOO (MRS.)

HONYENUGA JSC

GOLDA DENYO WITH ABENA SARPONG LED BY ACE ANKOMAH FOR THE 1ST DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT.APPLICANT

THADDEUS SORY WITH NANA BOAKYE MENSAH-BONSU FOR THE PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT

[2021]DLSC10683
																																						<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" >DANIEL OFORI<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>ECOBANK GHANA LIMITED, SECURITIES
AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION AND GHANA STOCK EXCHANGE<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/ APPLICANT)<o:p></o:p>[SUPREME
COURT, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p><div style="border-top: none; border-right: none; border-left: none; border-image: initial; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; padding: 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 0cm 0cm">CIVIL
MOTION NO. J7/13/2020 &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&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:
24THMARCH, 2021<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>GOLDA DENYO WITH ABENA
SARPONG LED BY ACE ANKOMAH FOR THE 1ST DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT.APPLICANT<o:p></o:p><div style="border-top: none; border-right: none; border-left: none; border-image: initial; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; padding: 0cm 0cm 1pt;">

THADDEUS SORY WITH NANA BOAKYE MENSAH-BONSU FOR THE PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT. <o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>YEBOAH CJ (PRESIDING), DOTSE JSC, BAFFOE-BONNIE
JSC, APPAU JSC, PWAMANG JSC, TORKORNOO (MRS.), HONYENUGA JSC<o:p></o:p><div style="border-top-width: 1.5pt; border-top-color: windowtext; border-left: none; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; border-right: none; padding: 1pt 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">RULING<o:p></o:p>

</div>&nbsp;THE
MAJORITY DECISION OF THE COURT WAS READ BY PWAMANG, JSC<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;PWAMANG,
JSC:-<o:p></o:p>This
is an application by the 1st defendant/respondent/respondent/judgment
debtor (the 1st defendant) praying the court to review a part of our
unanimous decision dated 17th June, 2020 rendered in respect of its
application for the court to determine the mode for calculating interest on an
amount of GHS6,162,240.00 being an investment the
plaintiff/appellant/appellant/judgment creditor (the plaintiff) made with it. The
application is one of several applications filed after judgment had been given
in the substantive case involving the parties so a brief background of the case
is important for an understanding of this delivery.<o:p></o:p>On
27th May, 2008 the plaintiff sold his shares in Cal Bank Ltd to a
customer of the 1st defendant who instructed the 1st
defendant to pay the plaintiff for the shares. The total amount was GHS13,762,240.00
and it was paid to the plaintiff on 30th May, 2008, but he did not
carry the money away. On the same day he made the 1st defendant to
issue some bankers’ drafts for his benefit and with an amount of GHS6,162,240.00
he requested the 1st defendant to open a fixed deposit &nbsp;investment account for him. Three days after
these transactions, the 1st defendant revoked the bankers’ drafts on
the ground that the Bank of Ghana queried the sale of the plaintiff’s shares to
its customer. About two weeks thereafter the Bank of Ghana cleared the trade in
the shares but the 1st defendant still refused to honour the
plaintiff’s bankers’ drafts and nothing at all was said about his investment.
The plaintiff sued in the High Court but lost and he appealed to the Court of
Appeal who affirmed the judgment of the High Court so he further appealed to
the Supreme Court. On 25th July, 2018 the Supreme Court gave
judgment in his favour and ordered the 1st defendant to pay his
monies with interest. <o:p></o:p>The
evidence of the plaintiff at the trial was that the 1st defendant
complied with his request and opened a fix deposit account for him in the
amount of GHS6,126,240.00 and that the 1st defendant sent him bank
statements for sometime before stopping. But the 1st defendant in its pleadings
denied opening any account for the plaintiff and even denied him being their
customer. Upon upholding the plaintiff’s case the court accepted his testimony
that a fixed deposit account was opened for him by the 1st defendant
at an interest rate of 30% per anum, a rate admitted by the 1st
defendant as part of interrogatories filed by the plaintiff’s counsel in the
High Court. The court therefore ordered the 1st defendant to pay the
said amount with interest of 30% per anum from 2nd June, 2008 to the
date of the High Court judgment. This order was varied upon a review
application at the instance of the plaintiff to be, that the 30% rate of interest
should be paid up to the date of the Supreme Court judgment.<o:p></o:p>Following
upon that review, the plaintiff filed a motion on notice seeking to amend his
entry of judgment filed on the basis of the main judgment. In an attached
proposed entry of judgment, the plaintiff calculated the interest rate on the
investment amount of GHS6,162,240.00 on the basis of compound interest but this
was opposed by the 1st defendant. In its affidavit in answer, the
1st defendant calculated the interest on the investment at simple interest. It
was this difference between the parties that the 1st defendant prayed the court
to resolve by determining the mode for calculating the interest on the
investment amount, whether it should be compound interest or simple interest.<o:p></o:p>The
1st defendant attached to its affidavit in answer a copy of a
document purporting to be a financial instrument covering the investment account
it opened for the plaintiff dated 30th June, 2008. It is important
to point out at the outset, that after the substantive judgment had been given
by the Supreme Court on the basis of the evidence on the record, the 1st
defendant applied for a review of the judgment praying to be allowed to
withdraw the admissions it made in the trial in the High Court of the
plaintiff’</main>