Lamptey Vrs Sunda International Company Ltd and Another [2022] GHAHC 11 (14 October 2022)

Lamptey Vrs Sunda International Company Ltd and Another [2022] GHAHC 11 (14 October 2022)

The Plaintiff failed to prove malice or lack of reasonable cause by the 1st Defendant in the criminal complaint, so no damages for malicious prosecution or negligence are awarded. The 2nd Defendant was not found negligent in transferring the funds, as the Plaintiff authorized the transaction by thumbprint. However, the 1st Defendant is not entitled to the GH¢37,800.00 received and must refund it with interest.

Citation
[2022] GHAHC 11
Parties
Plaintiff: Bismark Lamptey; 1st Defendant: Sunda International Company Ltd.; 2nd Defendant: Prudential Bank Ltd.
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Ghana
Judgment Date
14 October 2022
Procedural Posture
Civil / Judgment
Outcome
Plaintiff’s claims for refund of GH¢37,800.00 and interest granted against 1st Defendant; claims for damages against both Defendants dismissed; costs awarded against 1st Defendant.
Legal Topics
Negligence, Malicious Prosecution, Banker Customer Relationship, Damages
Source Language
English
Tort Law Banking Law Negligence Malicious Prosecution Banker Customer Relationship Damages

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bismark Lamptey

Plaintiff

Sunda International Company Ltd.

1st Defendant

Prudential Bank Ltd.

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Plaintiff was wrongly arrested, charged, arraigned and tried for stealing
  2. 2 Whether the Plaintiff was subjected to severe beatings resulting in ear damage
  3. 3 Whether the Plaintiff was acquitted and discharged

Ratio Decidendi

The Plaintiff failed to prove malice or lack of reasonable cause by the 1st Defendant in the criminal complaint, so no damages for malicious prosecution or negligence are awarded. The 2nd Defendant was not found negligent in transferring the funds, as the Plaintiff authorized the transaction by thumbprint. However, the 1st Defendant is not entitled to the GH¢37,800.00 received and must refund it with interest.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff’s claims for refund of GH¢37,800.00 and interest granted against 1st Defendant; claims for damages against both Defendants dismissed; costs awarded against 1st Defendant.

Orders

  • 1st Defendant to refund GH¢37,800.00 to Plaintiff with interest at current Commercial Bank rate from 14th November 2014 to date of final payment
  • 1st Defendant to pay costs of GH¢20,000.00 to Plaintiff