Muga Rural Bank Vrs Oceaba Farms Limited (E2/15/2016) [2024] GHAHC 254 (6 February 2024)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE, HELD IN SOGAKOPE ON TUESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024 BEFORE HER LADYSHIP JUSTICE DOREEN G. BOAKYE AGYEI (MRS.) JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT ========================================================= AMUGA RURAL BANK - PLAINTIFF. SUIT NO: E2/15/2016 VS OCEABA FARMS LIMITED - DEFENDANT. PARTIES: PLAINTIFF REPRESENTED BY HOSIAH QUAME (CLERK). DEFENDANT REPRESENTED BY FRANCIS KWAME ELEBLU. COUNSEL: MR. MARK ADZANU, ESQ., COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF - PRESENT. MR. DIVINE HORDASI AKPALU, ESQ., COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT - ABSENT. ========================================================= JUDGMENT The Plaintiff is a financial institution registered under the laws of Ghana to carry on the business of Banking and other related businesses. The Defendant is a company and a client of Plaintiff. On the 20th June, 2016 the Plaintiff herein instituted the instant action against the Defendant seeking the following reliefs as endorsed on the Writ of Summons and Statement of Claim. 1. Recovery of the sum of GHC 814,074.17 being Defendant's total indebtedness to the Plaintiff Bank as at April, 2016 2. General Damages for breach of Contract. ~ 1 ~ 3. Cost of the Suit Upon service of the Writ of Summons together with the Statement of Claim on the Defendant, the Defendant filed a Notice of Appearance and followed by filing a Statement of Defence on the 8th of July, 2016 and in the Statement of Defence, the Defendant partially denied the claims of the Plaintiff. At the close of pleadings the Court on the 15th of October, 2019 set down the following issues for the determination of the Court: a. Whether or not the total sum of money received by the Defendant in the form of overdraft plus interest amounted to GHC316,145.31 as at 30th December, 2013. b. Whether or not it was agreed that the Defendant will pay 3.5% as interest on the said amount per month. c. Whether the Defendant's total indebtedness to the Plaintiff stands at GHC 814,074.17 at the end of April, 2017. d. Whether or not Plaintiff is entitled to its claims e. Any other issue or issues arising from the Pleadings. THE PLAINTIFF'S CASE. The Plaintiff's case is that the Defendant is a customer of the Plaintiff Bank and from 9th July, 2012 the Defendant received various sums of monies from the Plaintiff in the form of Overdraft facilities. According to the Plaintiff, it was agreed between the Plaintiff and the Defendant that the facilities granted the Defendant will attract a monthly interest of 3.5%. That the total sum of monies received by the Defendant from the Plaintiff in the form of Overdraft facilities plus the accrued interest as at 30th December, 2013 amounted to GHC316, 145.31. The case of the Plaintiff is also that the Defendant was to pay the money back to the Plaintiff on the 30th December, 2013 but has refused or failed to do so thus making the Plaintiff to suffer serious financial ~ 2 ~ consequences and as at the end of April, 2016, the total indebtedness of the Defendant to the Plaintiff stands at GHC 814,074.17 since the debt continues to attract interest. The Plaintiff states that its Manager wrote a letter to the Defendant demanding payment of the money but the Defendant has failed to pay. Again according to the Plaintiff, the Defendant has proposed to give a parcel of land at Doryumu in lieu of the payment of its debts but since the Defendant was not able to produce title documents to the said land, the Plaintiff was not interested. The Plaintiff said it has instructed its Lawyers to write two separate Demand Letters to Defendant to make demands for the payment of the monies but the Defendant failed to do so hence this instant suit. DEFENDANT'S CASE. The case for the Defendant is that all monies they took from the Plaintiff Bank were in a form of a loan facility. The Defendant states that although the facility granted it by the Plaintiff was to attract an interest rate of 3.5% monthly, at a duly constituted meeting of the Plaintiff Bank with its customers and at the request of customers, the interest was reduced to 2.5% per month for all loans of GHC100,000 or more. Defendant denied that the transaction was Overdrafts because at a point, Plaintiff terminated the running Overdraft which interest was compound and cumulative thus converting the transaction into a loan facility. According to the Defendant, it has agreed with the Plaintiff to dispose of its land at Doryumu near Afienya which land was used as security for the loan to offset the loan. The Defendant's case is also that it held many meetings with the management of the Plaintiff Bank as to how the money is to be paid back and at the said meeting the Defendant told the Plaintiff to sell its land at Doryumu near Afienya to pay off the ~ 3 ~ debt, and the Plaintiff has never come back to disclose to the Defendant if the Plaintiff was having any difficulty in selling the property which property was used as security for the loan transaction. Thus according to the Defendant, when it received the Demand Notice from the Lawyer of the Plaintiff, it responded by a letter urging the Plaintiff to do a joint disposal of the property if the Plaintiff was having difficulty disposing off the property. The further case of the Defendant is that the Plaintiff never said they were not interested in the Doryumu property and though it has received the Demand Notice, the said Notice did not in any way negate the fact that the parties have agreed prior to the said Notices that the land which was used as Security for the loan be sold by the Plaintiff. The Defendant denied owing the Plaintiff the sum of GHC814,074.17. ANALYSIS OF THE EVIDENCE AND APPLICABLE LAW. The Courts have held that in all civil cases, the burden of proof, that is the duty of producing evidence in support of an averment necessary for a Court’s decision is on the party which made the averment. This duty is enacted in Section 11(1) OF THE EVIDENCE ACT, 1975 (NRCD 323). Thus the position of the law is that he who asserts must prove. The position of the law was provided for by statute and various interpretation of the Statute have been made by our Courts. The foundation of the principle is found in Sections 10, 11 and 12 of the Evidence Act, 1975 (NRCD 323). Section 10 (1) of NRCD 323 provides as follows: “For the purposes of this Decree, the burden of persuasion means the obligation of a party to establish a requisite degree of belief concerning a fact in the mind of the tribunal of fact or the Court.” ~ 4 ~ Sections 11(1) and (4) of NRCD 323 decree as follow: “Section 11: Burden of producing Evidence Defined: (1) For the purposes of this Act, the burden of producing evidence means the obligation of a party to introduce sufficient evidence to avoid a ruling on the issue against that party. (4) In other circumstances the burden of producing evidence requires a party to produce sufficient evidence which on the totality of the evidence leads a reasonable mind to conclude that the existence of the fact was more probable that its non- existence.” Section 12 of NRCD 323 states: Section 12: Proof by a preponderance of the Probabilities (1)Except as otherwise provided by Law, the burden of persuasion requires proof by a preponderance of the probabilities. (2) “Preponderance of the probabilities” means that degree of certainty of belief in the mind of the tribunal of fact or the Court by which it is convinced that the existence of a fact is more probable than its non-existence.” In AGBEKO V STANDARD ELECTRIC CO. [1978] 1 GLR 432 at 443, his Lordship Kingsley-Nyinah JA declared that in civil cases, it is “a vital principle of evidence, a common place of law that proof lies upon the party who affirms and not upon the one who denies.” In MAJOLAGBE V LARBI [1959] GLR 190 at page 192, his Lordship Ollenu J (as he then was) stated his now famous principle on proof in law thus:- “Proof in law is the establishment of facts by proper legal means; in other words, the establishment of an averment by admissible evidence. Where a party makes an averment, and his averment is denied, he is unlikely to be held by the Court to have sufficiently ~ 5 ~ proved that averment by his merely going into the witness-box, and repeating the averment on oath, if he does not adduce that corroborative evidence which (if his averment be true) is certain to exist.” Under Section 14 of the Evidence Act NRCD 323, the burden of producing evidence can shift from one party to the other. The shifting of the burden is provided for in Section 14 of NRCD 323 which provides as follows: “Except as otherwise provided by law, unless and until it is shifted 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 is asserting”. In OKONTI BORLEY & ANOR. V HANSBAUER LTD. [2011] 39 GMJ 1 SC, the Supreme Court held as follows on the issue of shifting of burden: “It is equally instructive to note that under Section 14 of the Evidence Act NRCD 323, the burden of producing evidence can shift from one party to the other in the course of trial”. The law espoused by the Supreme Court in the case IN RE ASHALLEY BOTWE LANDS: ADJETEY AGBOSU & ORS V. KORTEY & ORS [2003-2004] 1 GLR 425 where the SC opined as follows: “Under the provisions of the Evidence Decree, 1975 (NRCD 323), the burden of producing evidence in any given case was not fixed but shifted from party to party at various stages of the trial depending on the issue(s) asserted and/or denied” Then also, the Court of Appeal in the case of ZABRAMA V SEGBEDZI [1992] GLR 221 at 242 reiterated and expounded on the principal thus, “A person does not prove a fact by merely going into the witness box and repeating on oath what he avers in his pleadings and by calling a witness to repeat the same on oath”. This principle was also affirmed by the Supreme Court case of T. K. SERBEH CO. LTD V MENSAH [2005-2006] SCGLR 341 at page 360 per his Lordship Dr. Date- Bah thus:- “For however credible a witness may be, his bare affirmation on ~ 6 ~ oath or the repetition of his averments in the witness box cannot constitute proof. This is trite law: see Majolagbe v Larbi [1959] GLR 190, especially at page 192. This proposition is applicable to even matters whose proof does not require corroboration as a matter of law.” In the instant case, it is the Plaintiff who has the burden to lead credible and sufficient evidence to the satisfaction of this Honorable Court that the Defendant indeed owed the sum of money as endorsed on the Writ of Summons and the Statement of Claim. The Plaintiff must discharge this burden by telling the Court the total sum of money advanced to the Defendant by way of loan and overdraft facilities, from which period the Defendant took the overdraft and loan and finally at which interest rate both the loan and the overdraft were advanced to the Defendant. Similarly, Defendant who has asserted that the interest rate as put out by the Plaintiff which it agrees was the initial rate but which it claims was varied at a meeting and also that it does not owe the amount as put out by the Plaintiff has to also provide evidence of this state of affairs. This is so because in the defence, Defendant admitted the Overdrafts but claims it was terminated at a point and converted to a Loan facility because of the compound interest on the former. The Plaintiff being a Bank which keeps accounts of its customers must discharge this burden by way of cogent and detailed documentary evidence. The Defendant who also asserted a variation of the initial interest rate in the agreement and type of facility from Overdraft to Loan has to also put cogent evidence before the court to support his claims. The evidence of the only witness for the Plaintiff Mr. Winfred Wetsi told the Court under cross examination that all transactions between the parties were reduced into writing. ~ 7 ~ This is what the witness told the Court on 5th July, 2022 under Cross examination. Que: You also indicated at the last sitting that all your transactions with your clients are Ans: reduced into agreements not Exactly so My so? Lady. Que: And in the instant case the transaction between the Plaintiff Bank and the Defendant Company was also reduced into an agreement is that the case? Ans: Exactly the case My Lady. Que: And I presume that your Exhibit 'A' before this Honorable Court is the said Agreement between you and the Defendant? Ans: Exactly. ISSUES The 1st issue is whether or not the total sum of monies received by the Defendant in the form of overdraft plus interest amounted to GHC 316,145.31 as at 30th December 2013. On this issue, the Plaintiff at paragraph 4 of its Statement of Claim averred as follows: "Plaintiff says the total sums of money received by the Defendant from the Plaintiff in the form of overdraft facility plus interest as at 30th December, 2013 amounted to GHC 316,145.31" It is the duty of the Plaintiff to lead evidence to the satisfaction of this Honorable Court that as at 30th December 2013, the Defendant owed the Plaintiff the sum of GHC316,145.31. The Plaintiff must discharge this burden by detailing how much was given to the Defendant, how much was the interest and at what interest rate. In this case, the Plaintiff relied heavily on Exhibits B and C in proof of its case. In Exhibit 'B' which is a Demand Notice, the relevant portion on the issue is where it stated as follows: " My further instructions are that your current indebtedness to my client Bank stands at GHC 316,145.31 taking into consideration principals, interest and processing fees agreed upon by you" ~ 8 ~ According to Defendant, Exhibit 'B' is just an instruction from the Plaintiff Bank to its Solicitors which was subsequently reduced into writing and does not constitute an agreement between the Plaintiff Bank and the Defendant Company. They urge the Court not to attach any weight to said Exhibit 'B' in the determination of this case as the only witness for the Plaintiff had stated categorically that all transactions between the Plaintiff Bank and the Defendant was reduced into writing and Exhibit 'B' is not one of those. Defendant submits that on Exhibit 'B' again, it is stated that the processing fee formed part of the loan and as to how much the processing fee is, same is not stated on Exhibit 'B'. Defendant makes the case that this entry departs from the pleading of the Plaintiff where in paragraph 2 of its Statement of Claim, the Plaintiff averred as follows: 'Plaintiff says the Defendant is a customer of the Plaintiff Bank which received various sums of money from the Plaintiff in the form of overdraft facilities from 9th July, 2012' According to Defendant, from this averment it is clear between January, 2012 and 8th July, 2012 the Defendant did not receive any money from the Plaintiff thus all entries from January, 2012 to 8th July, 2012, are not applicable to this case. Defendant contends that further on Exhibit 'C', there is no indication as to how much the Defendant in all took from the Plaintiff, how much interest was accrued and at what interest rate. In Defendant’s view, the Plaintiff woefully failed to lead evidence as to how the figure GHC 316,145.31 was arrived at. The Court notes that on Exhibit 'C', the first entry ias dated 20th January, 2012 and it is labeled ‘Balance brought forward’ and the figure is GHC166,961.47. From a portion of the evidence of the sole witness for the Plaintiff on the 25th July, 2022 under cross examination, he stated among others as follows: Que: So your Exhibit “C” what is it? Ans: It is an account statement of the Defendant. ~ 9 ~ Que: It is an account statement comprising of what? Ans: It comprises of deposits from the customer, loan that the customer contracted from the bank, overdrafts, cheque clearing, interest charges on both loans and overdraft taken by the customer and withdrawals made. On 14th December, 2022 on further cross-examination of Plaintiff’s witness by Defendant’s Counsel on page 3, this ensued: Que: You issued your Writ of Summons on 09/06/2016, not so? Ans: Yes My Lady Que: And you agree with me that the figure that ought to have appeared in your Writ as the sum you are recovering should have been Three Hundred and Sixteen Thousand One Hundred and Forty Five Ghana Cedis Thirty One Pesewas (GHC316,145.31) and not Eight Hundred and Fourteen Thousand Seventy Four Ghana Cedis Seventeen Pesewas (GHC814,074.17) Ans: No My Lady. Before the Summons, there was another update on his indebtedness that was served on him on 3/05/2016 which is on Exhibit ‘4’ series attached to the witness statement of Christopher Elublu, Defendant’s witness. Que: Even with that figure there that is Six Hundred and Ninety Five Thousand One Hundred and Sixty Three Ghana Cedis Ten Pesewas (GHC695,163.10) and not Eight Hundred and Fourteen Thousand Seventy Four Ghana Cedis Seventeen Pesewas (GHC814,074.17) Ans: That is so My Lady. That is why it is clear that the final Demand Notice served on the Defendant is not the final amount the Defendant owes because interest accumulates on the said amount monthly. Again on 20th December, 2022 per the proceedings of that day, Plaintiff’s witness under cross examination testified as follows: Que: I am putting it to you that that that cannot be true, because in one of the ~ 10 ~ sittings when you were in the box you indicated to the court that interest was still running on the defendant’s debt Ans: Exactly so My Lady, but the system we run, we had suspended interest calculation for us not to make provision for bad debt. Que: Per what you have just told the court, how is that related to the unchronological order in which you have presented your accounts in Exhibit ‘C’? Ans: As at the time we presented the case to court, the balance stood at Three Hundred and Sixteen Thousand One Hundred and Forty Five Ghana Cedis Thirty One Pesewas (GHC316,145.31) as indicated on the Exhibit ‘C’ dated 27/10/2015 but because we had suspended interest for 2013 in November and December respectively up to 2016 when the case came to Court and we went back to calculate all the interest. Que: So what is the basis for you suspending the interest for the months or the years you have alleged and recommending calculation of interest thereafter? Ans: My Lady, as I indicated earlier, for the Bank not to make provision for bad debt, we had suspended the calculation of interest because any interest that is calculated will be added up to the Principal of which the Bank needs to be making provisions for, because the repayment is not forthcoming. From the record before me, I am not in doubt that the figure GHC316,145.31 was always known to both sides. It is clear that Per Exhibit "E" that Defendant applied for an Overdraft on 19/12/2010 and was granted a Loan per the language of the Agreement, of that amount on 30/08/2010 with terms per Exhibit ‘A’. Then Per Exhibit ‘F’, Defendant applied for an increase in the Overdraft facility which was administratively approved on 26/03/2011, two days later. Exhibit ‘D’ is a ‘Without Prejudice’ communication from Defendant’s Lawyer to Plaintiff’s outfit. The Court looked at same only for the purpose of ascertaining that Defendant acknowledged the debt of GHC316,145.31 owed Plaintiff as at 30/12/2013. Said Exhibit D was dated 9/02/2017. ~ 11 ~ On issue 1 therefore, the Court answers in the affirmative and resolves same in favour of Plaintiff herein accordingly. Issue 2: Whether or not it was agreed that the Defendant paid 3.5% as interest on the said amount per month? According to Defendant, from the evidence on record, particularly Exhibit "A" it is clear that the Defendant was to pay 3.5% on the GHC20,000. He opines that the evidence is however clear that the only money advanced to the Defendant Company which is supported by Exhibit 'A' is the GHC20,000 loan as captured by Exhibit "A", and therefore that 3.5% is the agreed interest rate is not borne out of the evidence before the Court. The Defendant has denied the rate of 3.5 % at paragraph 3 of his Defence and contends that the Plaintiff in its pleading and entire evidence, has not denied this piece of evidence from the Defendant. Defendant claims that it is therefore clear that the agreed interest rate is 2.5%. That what is however in doubt, is as to which of the two facilities that is the loan or the alleged overdraft the interest is applicable to. I have looked at the evidence on record and Exhibit ‘A’ is the foundation document which has clearly spelt out the interest rate at 3.5% per month. It does not spell out compound interest so that means same is simple interest. Defendant acknowledged the debt of GHC316,145.31 owed Plaintiff as at 30/12/2013. As at 30/12/2013 therefore, the simple interest rate of 3.5% per month is applicable to this accepted figure. Plaintiff did not put any evidence before the Court that the interest rate was compound and Defendant also did not put any evidence before the Court that the interest rate was reduced to 2.5% per month. The Court therefore makes a finding that Defendant owed the debt of GHC316,145.31 to Plaintiff as at 30/12/2013 with the simple interest rate of 3.5% per month. ~ 12 ~ Issue 3: Whether or not the Defendant's total indebtedness to the Plaintiff stands at GHC 814,074.17 as at the end of April, 2017. This issue is the real controversy between the parties herein. In paragraph 7 of the Plaintiff's Statement of Claim, the Plaintiff averred as follows: "Plaintiff says Defendant's total indebtedness to the Bank stands at GHC814,074.17 as at the end of April, 2016". On the same issue, the only witness for the Plaintiff, in his Witness Statement which was adopted at the trial as his evidence in chief at paragraph 10 stated as follows: "Defendant's total indebtedness to the Plaintiff as at April, 2017 is GHC 814,074.17". It must be observed that in the Plaintiff's Statement of Claim, the year and month referred to is April, 2016, however in both the Witness Statement which is the evidence in chief and Application for Directions, the year and month is April, 2017. On this issue, this is what the only witness of the Plaintiff told the Court on the 15th of November, 2022. Que: In your Writ of Summons, you indicated the Defendant owed you GHC814,074.17 as at April, 2016 is that the case. Ans: Yes Que: So what is the indebtedness of the Defendant as you stand there? Ans: My Lady the indebtedness per what we filed is GHC814,074.17. As at today I have to calculate to determine how much the Defendant owes. At paragraph 15 of the Defendant's Statement of Defence, they denied owing the Plaintiff the sum of GHC814,074.17. On this figure the only witness for the Defendant at paragraph 13 of his Witness Statement which was adopted at the trial as his evidence in chief stated as follows: "My Lord, Plaintiff's several letters from the Plaintiff's Bank and its Solicitors wrote to the Defendant and in those ~ 13 ~ letters, Plaintiff quoted conflicting figures as debts owed by the Defendant (Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit 4 series) is series of letters from the Plaintiff”. The letter dated 3rd May, 2016 signed by Gideon K. Odei, Acting General Manager of Plaintiff, captioned ‘Update on Indebtedness’ was addressed to the Defendant Company represented by Francis Eleblue. In the said letter the total indebtedness of the Defendant Company to the Plaintiff Bank as at 30th April, 2016, stood at GHC659,163.10. Defendant therefore reasons that from the evidence it is clear that the Plaintiff does not either know how much the Defendant owed them as at 30th April, 2016 or the Defendant's total indebtedness is not up to GHC814, 074.17 as the Plaintiff is claiming. On this issue, the Court is of the candid and considered opinion that to arrive at the figure owed by Defendant to Plaintiff, same will have to be calculated using the figure of GHC316,145.31 as at 30/12/2013 with the simple interest rate of 3.5% per month. The Court therefore does not make a finding that Defendant owed Plaintiff GHC 814,074.17 as at the end of April, 2017. Issue 4: Whether or not the Plaintiff is entitled to their claim? It is Defendant’s contention that on this issue, the evidence is clear that the Plaintiff has failed woefully to establish before this Honorable Court that as at 30th April, 2016, the Defendant owed them a total amount of GHC814,074.17 hence the Plaintiff is not entitled to their claim. They take the view that what the Plaintiff is seeking to do is to ask the Court to substitute a case for and on their behalf and inviting the Court to give them what they have not asked for. That on the totality of the evidence, they invite the Honorable Court to dismiss the total case of the Plaintiff. ~ 14 ~ The Court cannot agree with this view of Defendant as that will make them enrich themselves when they obviously do owe Plaintiff. I have noted however that Defendant had been proactive to have asked Plaintiff to seize and dispose of the Security that was given, being a parcel of land at Oyibi-Accra comprising of 10 plots of land. Defendant went on further to offer another parcel of land at Doryumu near Afienya in the Greater Accra Region, belonging to the Managing Director of Defendant to Plaintiff should the first Security not be sufficient. Defendant even went as far as offering to assist in the said disposal if Plaintiff was having difficulty but got no response from Plaintiff. Plaintiff at a point wrote to Defendant requiring some further details on said Security. The letter, titled ‘RE: TAKING POSSESSION OF COLLATERAL SECURITY’ was dated 7th May, 2015. There was a back and forth between the Parties and Defendant’s witness was a former Director of Plaintiff’s bank, who ought to know that you need to pay monies owed to a Bank. In the Ghanaian case of BARCLAYS BANK V. SAKARI [1997-98] 1 GLR 746 SC the Plaintiff bank granted the Defendant, its customer, a loan to purchase cars. A week after the purchase of the cars, it was seized by the government on the basis that those types of vehicles were to be operated exclusively by the State and not individuals. The defendant failed to repay the loan, and when he was sued, he put up the common law defence of frustration of the loan agreement arising from the unexpected seizure of the cars by the government. The Supreme Court, per Acquah JSC (as he then was), at page 646, made this statement:” “Now, what is the obligation created under this loan contract, a breach of which would entitle the other to sue? The obligation of the bank was to advance the money, which it did, and that of the defendant was to repay the loan together with interest, if any. This is the obligation of the parties under this loan contract, and indeed almost all loan contracts. When a bank lends money to its customer, the obligation of the customer is to repay the loan. If the loan is sought for, let us say, a business ~ 15 ~ venture, and the business flops, resulting in massive financial loss to the customer, this misfortune, though may be due to no fault of this customer, does not change the nature of the obligation of the customer to repay the loan he contracted for. He will still be obliged to fulfil his obligation. Thus, the obligation of the borrower in a loan contract, as opposed to other types of contracts, is to repay the loan and not the performance of the purpose for which the loan was sought.” That being said, the Court will enter judgment for Plaintiff against the Defendant in the sum of GHC316,145.31 as at 30/12/2013 with the simple interest rate of 3.5% per month till date of final payment. The Court does not find that Plaintiff is entitled to general damages for breach of contract as they could have utilized the Securities furnished to realize the amount or a part thereof. The Court will however award cost of GHC20,000 for Plaintiff herein. CASES CITED AGBEKO V STANDARD ELECTRIC CO. [1978] 1 GLR 432 at 443 MAJOLAGBE V LARBI [1959] GLR 190 at page 192, OKONTI BORLEY & ANOR. V HANSBAUER LTD. [2011] 39 GMJ 1 SC IN RE ASHALLEY BOTWE LANDS: ADJETEY AGBOSU & ORS V. KORTEY & ORS [2003-2004] 1 GLR 425 ZABRAMA V SEGBEDZI [1992] GLR 221 AT 242 T. K. SERBEH CO. LTD V MENSAH [2005-2006] SCGLR 341 at 360 BARCLAYS BANK V. SAKARI [1997-98] 1 GLR 746 SC ~ 16 ~ H/L JUSTICE DOREEN G. BOAKYE – AGYEI (MRS.) ESQ. (SGD.) (JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT) 06:02:2024. ~ 17 ~