IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF JUDICATURE, IN THE HIGH COURT OF

JUSTICE, COMMERCIAL DIVISION, HELD IN ACCRA ON TUESDAY, THE 26TH

OF MARCH 2024 BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP FRANCIS OBIRI ‘J’

SUIT NO. CM/RPC/0520/2022

AFRICA LIFE ASSURANCE LIMITED - PLAINTIFF

VS

GOLDEN LINK SAVINGS & LOANS - DEFENDANT

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

JUDGMENT

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Plaintiff per its Writ of Summons filed on 13th June 2022, claims against the

Defendant as follows:

a. Recovery of Three Million, Three Hundred and Thirty-Two Thousand, Six

Hundred and Ninety-Three Ghana Cedis (GHS 3,332,693.00) as at 21st March

2022.

b. Interest on the sum of Three Million, Three Hundred and Thirty-Two

Thousand, Six Hundred and Ninety-Three Ghana Cedis (GHS 3,332,693.00) as

at 21st March 2022 until date of final payment.

c. General damages for breach of contract.

d. Cost inclusive of solicitor’s legal fees.

The Writ of Summons and the Statement of Claim were served on the Defendant on

21st June 2022.

The Defendant entered appearance on 24th June 2022, and filed its Statement of

Defence on 19th July 2022. The parties could not settle the matter at the pre-trial

1|Page
settlement conference. Therefore, the following issues were set down for trial by the

court on 24th March 2023.

1. Whether or not on the expiration of the maturity date, the Defendant paid in

full the maturity interest and the principal sum invested and rolled over in full

investment with the consent of the Plaintiff.

2. Whether or not the Defendant is indebted to the Plaintiff in the sum of Three

Million, Three Hundred and Thirty-Two Thousand, Six Hundred and Ninety-

Three Ghana Cedis (GHS 3,332,693.00).

3. Any other issue arising from the pleadings.

The court ordered the parties to file their pre-trial checklists, witness statements and

all documents they intend to rely upon in the case on 16th November 2023.

The court notes on 16th November 2023, and hearing notice were served on counsel for

the Defendant on 6th December 2023.

The case was adjourned to 8th December 2023 for Case Management Conference.

Counsel for the Defendant was served with hearing notice for the Case Management

Conference. He was served on 6th December 2023. The Defendant and its counsel were

however absent for the Case Management Conference on 8th December 2023.

The Defendant also failed to file its pre-trial checklist; witness statement etc. as

ordered by the court on 16th November 2023.

The case was adjourned to 5th March 2024 for hearing. Counsel for the Defendant was

served with hearing notice on 26th February 2024 for the hearing on 5th March 2024.

However, the Defendant and its counsel failed to appear in court for the hearing.

When the case came up for hearing, the Plaintiff’s representative testified under oath

as follows:

He is called Clifford Yeboah. He lives at H/No. 138 Mooneye Street, Taifa, Accra.

2|Page
He is the Head of Finance at African Life Assurance Limited, a company incorporated

under the Laws of Ghana. The Defendant is a company registered in Ghana and

licensed by Bank of Ghana (BOG) to operate as a deposit taking Non-Bank Financial

Institution since October 2016.

He said on 16th March 2018, the Plaintiff placed an investment in the sum of Two

Million, Eight Hundred Thousand Ghana Cedis (GHS 2,800,000.00) with the

Defendant.

The investment placed was at an interest rate of 26% per annum and was for a term of

three hundred and sixty-five (365) days, commencing from 16th March 2018 and

ending on 16th March 2019.

On the maturity date, the Defendant was to pay maturity interest in the sum of GHS

728,000.00 to the Plaintiff. The Defendant was also to pay maturity principal of Three

Million, Five Hundred and Twenty-Eight Thousand Ghana Cedis (GHS 3,528,000.00)

payable quarterly for the term of the investment.

The Plaintiff representative stated, that on the expiration of the maturity date, the

Defendant failed to pay the full maturity interest and the principal sum invested, and

rolled over the investment when the Plaintiff had expressly notified the Defendant

that it would not roll over its investment.

According to him, on 20th September 2021, the Defendant again rolled over and

reinvested Plaintiff’s money in the sum of Three Million, Sixty-Five Thousand, Seven

Hundred and Twenty-Four Ghana Cedis (GHS 3,065,724.00) with the Defendant.

The investment placed was at an interest rate of 17.5% per annum and was for a term

of one hundred and eighty-two (182) days commencing from 20th September 2021, and

ending on 21st March 2022.

On the maturity date on 21st March 2022, the Defendant was to pay to the Plaintiff

maturity value of Three Million, Three Hundred and Thirty-Two Thousand, Six

3|Page
Hundred and Ninety-Three Ghana Cedis, and Twenty-Nine Pesewas (GHS

3,332,693.29). However, the Defendant failed to pay the money to the Plaintiff.

He said, by a letter dated 22nd April 2022, solicitor for the Plaintiff wrote a demand

letter for the maturity value of Three Million, Three Hundred and Thirty-Two

Thousand, Six Hundred and Ninety-Three Ghana Cedis and Twenty-Nine Pesewas

(GHS 3,332,693.29). However, the Defendant has still failed to pay the principal sum

and the interest.

The Plaintiff representative prayed the court to grant the Plaintiff’s reliefs as endorsed

on the Writ of Summons.

The Plaintiff representative tendered various documents in support of the Plaintiff’s

case. The documents were admitted and marked as exhibits without objection.

When the Plaintiff representative concluded his evidence, he was not cross-examined.

This was because the Defendant and its counsel failed to appear in court after being

served with hearing notice on 26th February 2024.

In the case of ANKUMAH v CITY INVESTMENT CO. LTD [2007-2008] SCGLR

1064, the Supreme Court held per Adinyira JSC (as she then was), at page 1076 as

follows:

“In any event, the defendant after several attempts was finally served but failed to

appear in court. The trial court therefore rightly adjourned the case for judgment.

A court is entitled to give a judgment in default, as in the instant case, if the party

fails to appear after notice of the proceedings has been given to him. For then it

would be justifiable to assume that he does not wish to be heard.”

See also, REPUBLIC v COURT OF APPEAL; EX PARTE EASTERN ALLOY CO.

LTD [2007-2008] 1 SCGLR 371

4|Page
It is therefore humble view, that since the Defendant and its counsel failed to appear

in court after being served with hearing notices, the Defendant waived its right to be

heard.

The law is also settled, that the right to be heard is an inalienable right which should

not be denied a party. However, if a party is aware of a hearing date but fails to appear

in court, it means, he has waived his right to be heard.

See: JULIUS SYLVESTER BORTEY ALABI v PARESH & 2 ORS [2018] 120 GMJ 1

SC

REPUBLIC v HIGH COURT (FAST TRACK DIVISION) ACCRA, EX PARTE

STATE HOUSING CO. LTD (NO.2) (KORANTEN-AMOAKO – INTERESTED

PARTY) [2009] SCGLR 185

REPUBLIC v HIGH COURT (HUMAN RIGHTS DIVISION) ACCRA, EX PARTE

AKITA (MANCELL-EGALA & ATTORNEY GENERAL – INTERESTED PARTIES)

[2010] SCGLR 374

Even in criminal cases where the stakes are high, a court can proceed to hear a case in

the absence of an accused person, if he is aware of a hearing date but he refuses to

appear before the court for the trial to be conducted in his presence after he has been

duly notified of the trial. This is sanctioned under Article 19(3) of the 1992

Constitution.

Therefore, the Defendant and its counsel waived their right to be heard. The

Defendant’s case was thus reduced to its pleadings which do not make a case.

See: ASANTE APPIAH v AMPONSA ALIAS MANSAH [2009] SCGLR 90

The position of the law is settled by a number of authorities, that when a party makes

an averment and the averment was not denied, no issue is joined and no further

evidence need to be led on that averment. Similarly, when a party has given evidence

5|Page
of a material fact and was not cross-examined upon it, he needs not call further

evidence to establish that fact. It implies admission.

See: KUSI & KUSI v BONSU [2010] SCGLR 60

FORI v AYIREBI AND OTHERS [1966] GLR 627 SC

DANIELLI CONSTRUCTION LTD. v MABEY & JOHNSON LTD [2007-2008] 1

SCGLR 60

WESTERN HARDWOOD ENTERPRISES LIMITED AND ANOTHER v WEST

AFRICAN ENTERPRISES LTD [1998-99] SCGLR 105

It is therefore my opinion, that to the extent that the Plaintiff representative was not

cross-examined, his evidence was not denied.

In civil cases when no crime is alleged, a plaintiff is to win his case on the

preponderance of probabilities, under sections 11(4) and 12(1) of the Evidence Act,

1975 (NRCD 323)

See also, YORKWA v DUAH [1992-1993] 1 GBR 278 CA

TAKORADI FLOUR MILLS v SAMIR FARIS [2005-2006] SCGLR 882

However, where a defendant files a counterclaim in an action, then he is also to prove

his counterclaim on the preponderance of probabilities. This is because he is the

plaintiff in respect of the counterclaim. However, this is not the situation in the instant

case.

See: FOSUHENE v ATTA WUSU [2011] 1 SCGLR 273

IN RE WILL OF BREMANSU; AKONU-BAFFOE & ORS v BUAKU & VANDYKE

(SUBSTITUTED BY) BREMANSU [2012] 2 SCGLR 1313

VERONICA OPOKU v MARY LARTEY [2018] 119 GMJ 244 SC

6|Page
NORTEY (NO.2) v AFRICAN INSTITUTE OF JOURNALISM &

COMMUNICATION & ORS (NO.2) [2013-2014] 1 SCGLR 703

I am therefore of the view, that the Plaintiff per its evidence and the exhibits has

proved its case on the preponderance of probabilities against the Defendant.

From the above analysis, my judgment is that the Plaintiff is entitled to all the reliefs

it is claiming against the Defendant. The Plaintiff is to recover from the Defendant

cash, the sum of GHS 3,332,693.00. I will award interest on the GHS 3,332,693.00 from

21st March 2022, until the date of final payment at a simple interest rate.

In respect of relief C, the law is that general damages are presumed to be the natural

or the probable consequence of the defendant’s act. The law implies general damages

in every infringement of an absolute right of a plaintiff by defendant. Therefore, once

the Defendant did not pay the Plaintiff within the time it was to pay the Plaintiff’s

investment, the Plaintiff would be entitled to general damages against the Defendant.

See: DELMAS AGENCY GHANA LTD v FOOD DISTRIBUTORS

INTERNATIONAL LTD [2007-2008] SCGLR 748

NATIONAL INVESTMENT BANK & WESTEC SECURITY v ROM

ENGINEERING LTD [2015-2016] 1 SCGLR 766

I will therefore award the Plaintiff general damages in the sum of GHS 30,000.00

against the Defendant. I will also award cost of GHS 20,000.00 in favour of the Plaintiff

against the Defendant. The Plaintiff action therefore succeeds.

SGD.

FRANCIS OBIRI

(JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT)

7|Page
COUNSEL

ALEX OWOO FOR THE PLAINTIFF

FREDA LARTEY FOR THE DEFENDANT

AUTHORITIES

1. ANKUMAH v CITY INVESTMENT CO. LTD [2007-2008] SCGLR 1064

2. REPUBLIC v COURT OF APPEAL; EX PARTE EASTERN ALLOY CO. LTD

[2007-2008] 1 SCGLR 371

3. JULIUS SYLVESTER BORTEY ALABI v PARESH & 2 ORS [2018] 120 GMJ 1

SC

4. REPUBLIC v HIGH COURT (FAST TRACK DIVISION) ACCRA, EX PARTE

STATE HOUSING CO. LTD (NO.2) (KORANTEN-AMOAKO –

INTERESTED PARTY) [2009] SCGLR 185

5. REPUBLIC v HIGH COURT (HUMAN RIGHTS DIVISION) ACCRA, EX

PARTE AKITA (MANCELL-EGALA & ATTORNEY GENERAL –

INTERESTED PARTIES) [2010] SCGLR 374

6. ASANTE APPIAH v AMPONSA ALIAS MANSA [2009] SCGLR 90

7. KUSI & KUSI v BONSU [2010] SCGLR 60

8. FORI v AYIREBI AND OTHERS [1966] GLR 627 SC

9. DANIELLI CONSTRUCTION LTD. v MABEY & JOHNSON LTD [2007-

2008] 1 SCGLR 60

10. WESTERN HARDWOOD ENTERPRISES LIMITED AND ANOTHER v

11. YORKWA v DUAH [1992-1993] 1 GBR 278 CA

8|Page
14. IN RE WILL OF BREMANSU; AKONU-BAFFOE & ORS v BUAKU &
VANDYKE (SUBSTITUTED BY) BREMANSU [2012] 2 SCGLR 1313

15. VERONICA OPOKU v MARY LARTEY [2018] 119 GMJ 244 SC

17. DELMAS AGENCY GHANA LTD. v FOOD DISTRIBUTORS

INTERNATIONAL LTD. [2007-2008] SCGLR 748

18. NATIONAL INVESTMENT BANK & WESTEC SECURITY v ROM

9|Page