Sulley Dolley Vrs Messrs Fnd Investment (gh) Ltd [2021] GHASC 178 (27 May 2021)

Sulley Dolley Vrs Messrs Fnd Investment (gh) Ltd [2021] GHASC 178 (27 May 2021)

The Supreme Court held that the evidence did not support a money lending transaction requiring a license, the Appellants were authorized dealers in foreign currency, and any statutory violations were minimal and did not render the contracts unenforceable. Restitution was available, and the correct interest rates were the prevailing commercial rates, not the contractual rates after termination of the memoranda.

Citation
[2021] GHASC 178
Parties
Plaintiff/respondent/respondent: Sulley Dolley; Defendant/appellant/appellant: Messrs FND Investment (GH) Ltd.; Defendant/appellant/appellant: Ade Coker
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Ghana
Judgment Date
27 May 2021
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Final Judgment (supreme Court)
Outcome
appeal dismissed with correction of interest orders
Legal Topics
Illegality of Contract, Restitution, Interest Rates, Money Lending, Foreign Exchange Regulation
Source Language
English
Contract Law Company Law Banking and Finance Illegality of Contract Restitution Interest Rates Money Lending Foreign Exchange Regulation

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 4 Authorities cited 20 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sulley Dolley

Plaintiff/respondent/respondent

Messrs FND Investment (GH) Ltd.

Defendant/appellant/appellant

Ade Coker

Defendant/appellant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Final Judgment (supreme Court)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Memoranda of Understanding were illegal and unenforceable due to statutory violations
  2. 2 Whether restitution is available for monies paid under alleged illegal contracts
  3. 3 Whether the interest rates awarded by lower courts were excessive and unconscionable

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that the evidence did not support a money lending transaction requiring a license, the Appellants were authorized dealers in foreign currency, and any statutory violations were minimal and did not render the contracts unenforceable. Restitution was available, and the correct interest rates were the prevailing commercial rates, not the contractual rates after termination of the memoranda.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed with correction of interest orders

Orders

  • Appellants to pay Respondent US$400,000 with simple annual interest at prevailing New York rate from June 2009 to final payment
  • Appellants to pay Respondent US$200,000 with simple annual interest at prevailing New York rate from June 2009 to final payment