|
JUDGMENT:
Plaintiff caused a Writ of
Summons to issue against the
Defendants for the following
reliefs:
“a. Recovery of the sum of
GH¢120,968.31 being Defendants
indebtedness to Plaintiff as at
17th March 2009.
b. Interest on the said
GH¢120,968.31 at 35% per annum
from 18th March 2009
till date of final payment.”
Plaintiff’s case is that at the
request of the 1st
Defendant it granted a series of
loan facilities to the 1st
Defendant to wit:
1.
GH¢15,500 on or about 11-9-06
which expired on 11-01-07.
2.
GH¢25,000 on or about 14-12-06
which expired on 14-6-07
3.
GH¢14,500 on or about 22-12-06
which expired on 22-6-07
4.
GH¢10,000 on or about 22-6-07
which expired on 22-9-07
5.
GH¢5,000 on or about 31-5-07
which expired on 1-12-07
6.
GH¢12,000 on or about 14-6-07
which expired on 14-12-07
7.
GH¢20,000 on or about 12-06-08
which expired on 12-3-09
The said facilities were secured
by a personal guarantee executed
by the 2nd Defendant,
and the facilities were to
attract interest at the rate of
35% per annum, to be paid
monthly in arrears and subject
to change by Plaintiff and in
accordance with the various loan
agreements. Defendant defaulted
in the repayment, and despite
repeated demands, Defendants
have failed and/or refused to
retire their indebtedness to
Plaintiff. 1st
Defendant’s indebtedness stood
at GH¢120,968.31 as at
17-03-2009.
Defendants admit that 1st
Defendant received various sums
of money from the Plaintiff but
contend that some of the sums
stated by the Plaintiff in its
plaint, though requested for by
the Plaintiff, were not paid to
1st Defendant. In
respect of the sum of
GH¢25,000.00, Defendants assert
that Plaintiff released only
GH¢10,000 to 1st
Defendant and paid the
difference of GH¢15,000.00 to
another contractor called D’Pong
Construction Co. Ltd.
Defendants assert further that
though they applied for the sum
of GH¢14,500.00 same was paid to
D’Pong Construction Company
Limited, who per a letter dated
3rd June 2008
admitted receipt of the
GH¢15,000.00 and the
GH¢14,500.00 and requested that
all interest accruing be debited
to his account.
Defendants contend that for all
contracts undertaken by them,
certificates for payment were
raised in the joint names of the
Plaintiff and 1st
Defendant for which they
received payments into
Plaintiff’s account with Bank of
Ghana. Defendants contend
further that their account and
credit rating with Plaintiff was
so excellent that on the 25th
of August 2008 when 1st
Defendant overpaid his account,
the Plaintiff refunded
GH¢1,806.82 per its cheque No.
413313 to them. This is contrary
to the Plaintiff’s averment in
its Amended Reply that per a
letter dated 3rd June
2008, D’Pong Construction
Company Limited instructed
Plaintiff to debit its loan
account and credit the 1st
Defendant with the principal and
all interest upon which an
amount of GH¢37,414.56 was
debited to D’Pong Construction
Company and a corresponding
credit made to 1st
Defendant. By another letter
dated 3rd June 2008,
1st Defendant is
alleged to have instructed
Plaintiff to debit its account
and credit the account of
another client by name Emmanuel
Addo Enterprise an amount of
GH¢41,405.75, which said
instruction was carried out.
The following issues were set
down for trial:
1. Whether or not the
Plaintiff granted 1st
defendant a loan facility in the
sum of GH¢25,000 on or about 14th
December 2006
2. Whether or not
the Plaintiff granted 1st
Defendant a loan facility in the
sum of GH¢14,500 on or about 22nd
December 2006.
3. Whether or not the
Plaintiff’s former Managing
Director and another senior
staff prevailed upon defendants
to take only GH¢10,000 and the
difference of GH¢15,000 given to
D’Pong Construction Limited
4. Whether or not D’Pong
construction limited wrote to
plaintiff admitting receipt of
the payment and requested all
interest accrued should be
debited to his account.
5. Whether or not the
defendants have repaid all the
facilities granted defendants by
plaintiff.
6. Whether or not
the plaintiff is entitled to its
claim.
7. Any other issues
arising out of the pleadings.
The undisputed fact is that the
1st Defendant was
granted various sums of money as
loan facilities from the
Plaintiff which were guaranteed
by 2nd Defendant.
Defendants admit they were
granted the said loans, but
however contend that some of the
loans Plaintiff granted to the 1st
Defendant were not paid to 1st
Defendant, but to another
person. In my opinion therefore
the main issues to be determined
are:
1.
Whether or not Defendants were
prevailed upon by officers of
the Plaintiff Bank to take only
GH¢10,000.00 out of the
GH¢25,000 granted to the 1st
Defendant and the difference of
GH¢15,000 given to D’Pong
Construction Company limited.
2.
Whether or not 1st
Defendant received the loan
facility of GH¢14,500 granted to
it by Plaintiff.
3. Whether or not Plaintiff
is entitled to its claim.
It is trite law that for every
case there is a burden of proof
to be discharged and the party
who bears the burden will be
determined by the nature and
circumstances of the case.
Our Evidence Decree 1976
(NRCD 323), as interpreted
in Ababio v Akwasi 111
[1994-95] Ghana Bar Report, Part
11, is that a party whose
pleadings raise an issue
essential to the success of the
case assumes the burden of
proving such issue. The burden
only shifts to the defence when
sufficient prima facie
case is made by the plaintiff on
any particular issue.
As stated by Justice
Mensa-Boison JA, in the case of
Acquaye v Awotwi [1982-83] 2
GLR 110, the
testimony of a plaintiff is
presumptive evidence which is
rebuttable. The well-known rule
of evidence is that although
proof in a civil case rested on
the plaintiff, that burden was
discharged once the plaintiff
had introduced sufficient
evidence of the probability of
his case. It would then rest on
the defendant to rebut the
plaintiff’s evidence.
Therefore since it is the
Plaintiff herein that is
alleging that the Defendants are
indebted to it to the tune being
claimed, the Plaintiff had to
adduce sufficient evidence to
prove its case. The burden
would then shift to the
Defendant to prove otherwise.
Defendants have also alleged
that they were prevailed upon to
receive less than the amount
granted to them as loans, they
also have to prove this claim.
In the case of In Re
Ashalley Botwe Lands: Adjetey
Agbosu and Ors v. Kotey and Ors
(2003 – 2004) SCGLR 420 the
Supreme Court reiterated the
well-known position of the law
with regard to the burden of
proof.
Mr. Justice Brobbey JSC
explained the principle as
follows:
“the hackneyed Common Law
principle has always been that a
defendant in a civil case
assumes no onus of proof, and
indeed is said to be under no
obligation to prove his
defence. Serious in roads have
however been created in this
principle by two sections in
NRCD 323 the first section 11
(1) which states that:
“11(1) For the purposes of this
Decree, the burden of producing
evidence means the obligation of
a party to introduce sufficient
evidence to avoid a ruling
against him on the issue.”
The second is section 14 reads
that:
“Except as otherwise provided by
law, unless and until it is
specified a party has the burden
of persuasion as to each fact
the existence or non-existence
of which is essential to the
claim or defence he asserting.”
These sections of the Evidence
Decree, 1975 clearly require a
defendant who wishes to win his
case to lead evidence on issues
he desires to be ruled in his
favour. The effect of sections
11(1)
and 14 and similar section in
the Evidence Decree, 1975 may be
described as follows: a
litigant who is a defendant in a
civil case does not need to
prove anything; the plaintiff
who took the defendant to court
has to prove what he claims he
is entitled to from the
defendant. At the same time, if
the court has to make a
determination of a fact or of an
issue, and that determination
depends on evaluation of facts
and evidence, the defendant must
realize that the determination
cannot be made on nothing. If
the defendant desires the
determination to be made in his
favour, then he has the duty to
help his own cause or case by
adducing before the court such
facts or evidence that will
induce the determination to be
made in his favour. The logical
sequel to this is that if he
leads no such facts or evidence,
the court will be left with no
choice but to evaluate the
entire case on the basis of the
evidence before the court, which
may turn out to be only the
evidence of the plaintiff. If
the court chooses to believe the
only evidence on record, the
plaintiff may win and the
defendant may lose. Such loss
may be brought about by default
on the part of the defendant.
In the light of the Statutory
provisions, literally relying on
the common law principle that
the defendant does not need to
prove any defence and therefore
does not need to lead any
evidence may not always serve
the best interest of the
litigant even if he is a
defendant.”
So what evidence did the
Plaintiff adduce in support of
its claim?
Plaintiff’s Financial Analyst,
Frederick Kwame Akosah,
testified on its behalf and
tendered in evidence all the
documents covering the various
facilities granted to 1st
Defendant by Plaintiff as
follows:
- Exhibit “A” – Facility letter
approving a short-term loan
facility of ¢155,000,000.00
(GH¢15,500.00)
- Exhibit “B” – Facility letter
approving a short-term loan
facility of ¢250,000.00
(GH¢25,000.00)
- Exhibit “C” Loan Agreement for
the GH¢25,000.00 Loan facility.
- Exhibit “D1” - Facility
letter approving a short-term
loan of ¢145,000,000.00
(GH¢14,500.00)
- Exhibit “E” -
Facility letter approving a
short-term facility of
¢100,000,000 (GH¢10,000.00)
- Exhibit “F” -
Facility letter approving a
short-term facility of
¢120,000,000 (GH¢12,000.00)
-
Exhibit “F1” - Loan
agreement for the GH¢12,000.00
facility.
- Exhibit “G” -
Facility letter approving short
term loan facility of
GH¢20,000.00.
- Exhibit “G1” -
Loan Agreement for the GH¢20,000
facility.
As already stated, the said
loans were guaranteed by the 2nd
Defendant; see Exhibit “H”,
“H1”, “H2”, and “H3”. Mr.
Akosah also tendered in evidence
(Exhibit “K”) the 1st
Defendant’s Statement of Account
which gives the outstanding
balance of the 1st
Defendant as GH¢167,435.82 DR.
as at 24th February,
2010.
What evidence then did the
Defendants adduce to rebut the
evidence adduced on behalf of
the Plaintiff? The evidence of
the 2nd Defendant,
Abdul Rahman-Dauda, was that he
was granted a loan facility of
GH¢15,000 in September 2006
which he repaid. He tendered in
evidence a copy of a cheque paid
to Plaintiff; see Exhibit “1”.
He testified that the 1st
Defendant subsequently applied
for a loan of GH¢25,000 but
received only GH¢10,000.00.
Abdul Rahman-Dauda’s further
evidence was that after the loan
facility of GH¢25,000 was
approved, he was informed when
he went to the office of the
Plaintiff, that part of the loan
had been given to a certain
D’Pong Construction Company.
This is what he said:
Q: What do you have to say
about the fifteen thousand that
you did not receive?
A: They approved the
GH¢25,000 (Twenty-five thousand
Ghana Cedis) and they told me to
come back on Thursday. So when
I went there they said there is
one contractor called D’Pong,
Mr. Prince John Baidoo, came
there with a certificate but
that time they said I will not
need all the ¢250,000.000
(GH¢25,000), so they will give
me ten thousand and I should
come back after two weeks so
that they will give the fifteen
thousand to D’Pong. So before I
came back D’pong Construction
Company Limited, the certificate
he brought is to mature at that
time, so that if there is any
money they can give it to me.
So they gave me ten thousand and
gave the fifteen thousand to
D’Pong Construction.
Q: What you just told the
court do you have anything to
show to the court that that was
what happened?
A: Yes please.
Q: What does Exhibit L say?
Can you read it to the court?
A: Witness Reads Out.
Q: Did you approach the
plaintiff for any other
facility?
A: Yes my Lord.
Q: When was that and how
much was it?
A: That is fourteen
thousand five hundred.
Q: When did you approach
the plaintiff for another
facility?
A: December 2006
Q: How much did you go for?
A: Fourteen thousand five
hundred.
Q: Did you also pay for
that money?
A: That fourteen thousand
five hundred was the amount in
this letter D’Pong Construction
as saying that they debit his
account because I applied for
that too but he took the money.
Q: I hope you also paid for
it?
A: Yes please.
Apart from the facilities
referred to above, Abdul
Rahman-Dauda testified that he
was granted further loan
facilities at various times
which he repaid. He said he was
granted loan facilities of
GH¢10,000 and GH¢12,000 in 2007
which he repaid together by
cheque; see Exhibit “2”. Again
around March 2008, 1st Defendant
approached Plaintiff for a loan
of GH¢20,000 which was granted
and which 1st Defendant repaid
per Exhibit “3”.
Abdul Rahman-Dauda also tendered
in evidence a letter written by
the Department of Feeder Roads
advising the Ashanti Regional
Engineer of the Department to
ensure that all payment
certificates under the contract
awarded to 1st
Defendant were raised in the
joint names of Messrs Tripple
“3” Company Limited and the
Securities Discount Limited,
Accra (Exhibits “5” and “6”).
The Parties are therefore ad
idem as regards the loan
facilities of GH¢15,000,
GH¢10,000, GH12,000 and
GH¢20,000. The bone of
contention is whether or not the
1st Defendant
received the total loan amounts
of GH¢25,000 and GH¢14,500 which
they concede was granted by the
Plaintiff. As stated above, the
Defendants contend that they did
not benefit from the full
amount. Defendants are
contending that the difference
was paid to another construction
firm called D’Pong Construction
Company Limited.
Plaintiff denies the claim of
the Defendants and contends that
Defendant was offered the entire
amount of GH¢25,000 as a loan
and that it was based on a
private arrangement between 1st
Defendant and D’Pong
Construction Company that the
said GH¢15,000.00 was paid to
D’Pong Company Limited. To
buttress the allegation that it
was 1st Defendant
that agreed that GH¢15,000.00 be
paid to D’Pong, Plaintiff
tendered in evidence Exhibit
“L”, a letter written by the
Managing Director of D’Pong
Company Limited to Plaintiff.
Exhibit “L” states as follows:
“Dear Sir,
MEMORANDUM
OF UNDERSTANDING
RE: AWARD OF SUB –
CONTRACT/TRIPLE THREE CONST.
This is in reference to our
discussion held yesterday, the 2nd
of June 2008.
We hereby instruct you to debit
the loan facilities granted
under the sub-contract in favour
of Triple Three Construction.
The amount involved is GH¢14,500
= and 15,000 = all totalling
29,500= out of which GH¢10,000=
has been paid to him personally
last year, ie 16th
July 2007.
All interest accruals should be
taken into account to credit his
account and debit my account
respectively.
Thank you.
Yours faithfully
(SGD)
Prince John Baidoo
(Managing Director)”
I have taken note of the fact
that the 2nd
Defendant has signed at the
bottom left hand corner of the
Exhibit “L”. This, in my view,
demonstrates that 2nd
Defendant was aware of the
contents of Exhibit “L”.
Attached to Exhibit “L” are two
(2) Statements of Account in the
joint names of 1st
Defendant and D’Pong
Construction Company Limited.
The balance on the 2 Statements
as at 3rd July 2008
is GH¢11,003.72 and GH¢26,410.81
respectively. The total of
these two sums is GH¢37,414.56.
This is the amount D’Pong is
requesting Plaintiff, as agreed
to by 1st Defendant,
to debit it i.e. D’Pong and
credit 1st Defendant
as the reconciled figure between
the two companies. The amount
of GH¢37,414.56 emanating from
Exhibit “L” is captured as a
credit entry for 3rd
July 2008 in Exhibit “K”.
Similarly Exhibit “M” is 1st
Defendant’s own letter addressed
to Plaintiff for regularization
of its account with one Emmanuel
Addo. This is how Exhibit “M”
reads:
“Dear Sir,
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
RE:
SUB-CONTRACT TO M/S EMMANUEL
ADDO ENTERPRISE
This is in reference to our
discussion held yesterday, the 2nd
of June, 2008.
We hereby instruct you to debit
the loan facilities granted to
the above company for a
sub-contract given to him by me.
The amount involved is GH¢25,000
All interest accruals should be
taken into account to credit his
account and debit my account
respectively.
Thank you
(SGD)
Mr. Alhaji
Rahman
(Managing
Director)”
Also attached to Exhibit “M” is
a Statement of Account in the
joint names of Emmanuel Addo and
1st Defendant. The
balance shown therein as at 3rd
July 2008 is GH¢41,405.74. It
is this amount that 1st
Defendant is asking Plaintiff to
credit Emmanuel Addo with and
debit 1st Defendant.
From Exhibit “K” Plaintiff has
accordingly debited 1st
Defendant’s account with the
said amount of GH¢41,405.75 on 3rd
July 2008. I will find that
Exhibit “K” is an accurate
reflection of 1st
Defendant’s account.
In Zabrama v. Segbedzi
(1991) 2 GLR 221 CA, the
Court of Appeal stated that a
person who makes an averment or
assertion which is denied by his
opponent, has the burden to
establish that his averment or
assertion is true. And he does
not discharge this burden unless
he leads admissible and credible
evidence from which the fact or
facts he asserts can properly
and safely be inferred and not
by merely repeating in the
witness box an averment in the
pleadings.
As already indicated, 2nd
Defendant merely repeated the
averments when he testified on
behalf of the Defendants. He
was Defendants’ only witness.
Though there are circumstances
where the court could without
corroborative evidence accept
the evidence of a single
witness, even though the
testimony of the sole witness
had been contradicted by the
evidence of another witness, yet
in the circumstances of the
instant case, the Court would
not accept the Defendants’
assertions which were not
sufficiently proved by their
lone witness. In my opinion,
this is a case in which
corroborative evidence was
required. In the circumstances
of the instant case Defendants’
assertions cannot be
sufficiently proved by his
evidence alone. Corroborative
evidence is certainly called
for, but the Defendant failed to
produce any. This position was
expounded in the case of
Diab v. Quansah (1971) 1 GLR 101.
I will find that the Defendants
have not proved their assertion
that 2nd Defendant
was coerced by Plaintiff to
relinquish a portion of the loan
of GH¢25,000, and the loan of
GH¢14,500 granted to 1st
Defendant by Plaintiff to D’Pong
Construction Company Limited.
So, is the Plaintiff entitled to
its claim? Exhibit “P” is a
letter written by the 2nd
Defendant on behalf of the 1st
Defendant to the Plaintiff. In
the said letter, Defendants
admitted to owing the
Plaintiff. This is what Exhibit
“P” States:
“Dear Sir,
RE: YOUR
INDEBTEDNESS TO SDC LTED: -
FINAL DEMAND NOTICE
We acknowledge receipt of your
letter dated 22nd
January, 2009 on the above
subject and thank you. We also
apologise for the belated reply
due to the fact that your letter
was received on the 5th
March 2009.
Commenting on the fact contained
in your letter, we wish to admit
that we are indeed a customer of
your clients company and further
admit that we are in serious
arrears in the repayment of all
facilities granted our company
due to factors beyond our
control. This is regrettable.
However in admitting our
indebtedness, we wish to correct
certain anomalies in the
computation of the outstanding
balance on our account as at 12th
December, 2008 Viz;
GH¢110,580.21 need for a
reconciliation of Accounts
between our company and SDC
Limited.
This is so because, we are
working jointly with Messrs
D’Pong Construction Co. Limited,
part of the facility totalling
GH¢29,500 was paid to D’Pong
Construction Company Limited –
Please see Exhibit “3” and “4”
attached.
We humbly ask you to advert your
clients attention to this and
call for a reconciliation of
accounts as requested earlier as
soon as possible.
And further request that,
withstanding our request, we
shall require an updated
statement of Accounts and a
grace period of 6 (Six months)
to settle our accounts in full.
We count on your cooperation and
remain.
Thank you.
Yours faiftully,
(SGD)
Abdul Rahman –Dauda
(Managing Director)
CC: SDC Ltd – Attn: Ms, Patricia
Akoto
MD – D’Pong Construction Co.
Ltd.”
And Contrary to the submission
made by Counsel for Defendants’
in his written address,
Plaintiff did not deny that
Defendants had made some
payments as repayment of the
loan facilities but contended
that Defendants have not paid
off the entire debt. Mr. Akosah
in his evidence conceded that a
cheque in the amount of
¢178,481,678.25 (GH¢17,848.16)
was received by Plaintiff and
credited to 1st
Defendant’s account. His
evidence was that three (3)
credit entries for 5th
June, 2007 amounted to
GH¢17,848.16 which is the same
amount stated in Exhibit “1”.
2nd Defendant sought
to suggest that that payment was
in satisfaction of the very
first facility granted 1st
Defendant in the sum of
GH¢15,500. However, from the
evidence, by the time that
Exhibit “1” was received,
Plaintiff had granted 1st
Defendant at least three (3)
further facilities which were
all outstanding. Indeed, that
first facility had accrued
interest by the said date. From
the Statement of Account
(Exhibit “K”) by the time
the said GH¢17,848.16 was
received by Plaintiff, 1st
Defendant’s total indebtedness
to Plaintiff stood at GH¢77,
868.07. There is no evidence
before the Court that any
further payments were made by 1st
Defendant to Plaintiff until
some ten (10) months thereafter
when the Department of Feeder
Roads issued a cheque dated 14th
March, 2008 in the sum of
GH¢26,711.25 (Exhibit “2”).
Mr. Akosah’s evidence is that
out of this amount, GH¢20,191.75
was credited to 1stDefendant’s
account on 26th March
2008. The sum of the amounts
credited to 1st
Defendant on the said date total
GH¢20,191.75. Mr. Akosah’s
further evidence is that the
balance of GH¢6,000 was applied
to the payment of a job executed
by an auctioneer in respect of
the facility granted to 1st
Defendant. He said that this
was upon the agreement of
Defendants and that is why the
balance of GH¢6,000 is not
reflected in the Statement of
Account. I prefer Mr. Akosah’s
version of the story and accept
his evidence as regard the
balance of GH¢6,000
All these pieces of evidence
were not challenged. It is trite
learning that by failing to
cross-examine a witness on his
evidence Defendants were by the
provisions of section 119 (a)
of the Evidence Decree, 1975
(NRCD 323) are deemed to
have admitted that evidence; see
Akyea-Djamson v. Duagbor &
Ors (1989-90) 1 GLR 223.
The cheque (Exhibit “2”) which
was in the joint names of the
Plaintiff and 1st
Defendant for the sum of
GH¢20,191.75 was also credited
to the 1st
Defendant’s account and the
balance after that was
GH¢95,324.73. 2nd
Defendant also tendered in
evidence (Exhibit “3”) a payment
voucher in the net sum of
GH¢16,809 for the amount to be
made in the joint names of
Plaintiff and 1st
Defendant.
Mr. Akosah testified that on 11th
August, 2008, Plaintiff received
payment for the said
GH¢16,809.09. He said that
GH¢15,002.27 out of the said
amount was applied to defray
Defendant’s indebtedness while
the balance of about GH¢1,800
was given to Defendants at their
request, to complete other
projects that 1st
Defendant was engaged in.
Indeed the exact balance was
GH¢1,806.82, as indicated in
Exhibit “4”. There is thus no
doubt about the fact that the
balance of GH¢1,806.82 was given
back to Defendants. 2nd
Defendant’s evidence that the
amount of GH¢1,806.82 was a
refund to Defendants from
overpayment of their debt as a
result of excellent performance
can therefore not be true.
From the evidence before the
Court, by the time the said
GH¢15,002.27 was credited to the
1st Defendant’s
account and the said GH¢1,806.82
given to Defendants, Defendants’
indebtedness to Plaintiff stood
at GH¢112,419.39. As earlier
stated, Exhibit “4” is the
documentation on the treatment
of said GH¢1,806.82. It is made
up of Plaintiff’s cheque dated
26th August 2008 in
the name of the 2nd
Defendant for the said
GH¢1,806.82, and another
document dated 25th
August, 2008. Provision is made
in that other document for the
principal amount of GH¢1,806.82,
interest rate 8%, gross amount
due GH¢1,812.36. This
corroborates Mr Akosah’s
testimony that the said
GH¢1,806.82 was advanced to
Defendants to complete on-going
projects at Defendants’
request. Nothing on the face of
Exhibit “4” shows that it was a
refund to Defendants for
overpayment of debt as alleged.
When 2nd Defendant
testified, he made reference to
the cheques tendered through Mr
Akosah as evidence of payment
made by him to clear the
facilities advanced the
Defendants. He did not lead
evidence of any other payments
made by Defendants to retire the
debt. He did not challenge the
accuracy of Exhibit “K” which is
the Statement of Account. He
did not question the computation
of interest as captured in
Exhibit “K”.
I will therefore find that
Plaintiff adduced sufficient
evidence to prove its claim and
Defendants did not adduce cogent
evidence to rebut Mr Akosah’s
evidence. Furthermore,
Defendants did not lead
sufficient evidence to support
their assertion that they did
not receive all the money given
to them as loans by the
Plaintiff In the circumstances,
I find that Plaintiff is
entitled to its claim, and will
so hold.
In conclusion, I hold that
Plaintiff recovers from
Defendants the sum of GH¢120,968.31,
together with interest at the
rate of 35% per annum from
18-3-2009 until date of final
payment.
Costs assessed at GH¢2,500
against the Defendants.
(SGD)
BARBARA ACKAH-YENSU (J)
JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT
COUNSEL
BRIGHT OKYERE ADJEKUM
PLAINTIFF
AMON KOTEY
DEFENDANTS |
