Ecobank Ghana Ltd Vrs Aluminium Enterprise Ltd [2020] GHASC 23 (13 May 2020)

Ecobank Ghana Ltd Vrs Aluminium Enterprise Ltd [2020] GHASC 23 (13 May 2020)

The Supreme Court held that the Plaintiff was not entitled to recover the loan of 165,000 Ecus as it would be unconscionable given the project failure and the interconnected agreements, and that the Defendant failed to prove negligence or actual loss attributable to the Plaintiff. The awards of damages and general damages to the Defendant were reversed due to lack of evidentiary basis and procedural unfairness in the amendment and conduct of the trial.

Citation
Ecobank Ghana Ltd Vrs Aluminium Enterprise Ltd [2020] GHASC 23 (13 May 2020)
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant/appellant: Ecobank Ghana Limited; Defendant/respondent/respondent: Aluminium Enterprise Limited
Court
ghasc
Jurisdiction
Ghana
Judgment Date
13 May 2020
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Final Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; damages and general damages awards to Defendant reversed; Plaintiff's claim for loan recovery dismissed.
Legal Topics
Loan Recovery, Negligence, Damages, Amendment of Pleadings, Bank Customer Relationship, Remoteness of Damages, Restitution, Appellate Review
Source Language
eng
Contract Law Tort Law Banking Law Civil Procedure Loan Recovery Negligence Damages Amendment of Pleadings +4 more

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 5 Authorities cited 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ecobank Ghana Limited

Plaintiff/appellant/appellant

Aluminium Enterprise Limited

Defendant/respondent/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to recover the outstanding sum of 165,000 Ecus from the Defendant
  2. 2 Whether the Defendant is entitled to the award of GH¢14,963,505.50 as profit lost from 1992 to 2011
  3. 3 Whether the Defendant is entitled to the award of GH¢500,000 as general damages

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that the Plaintiff was not entitled to recover the loan of 165,000 Ecus as it would be unconscionable given the project failure and the interconnected agreements, and that the Defendant failed to prove negligence or actual loss attributable to the Plaintiff. The awards of damages and general damages to the Defendant were reversed due to lack of evidentiary basis and procedural unfairness in the amendment and conduct of the trial.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; damages and general damages awards to Defendant reversed; Plaintiff's claim for loan recovery dismissed.

Orders

  • Award of GH¢14,963,505.50 to Defendant reversed
  • Award of GH¢500,000 general damages to Defendant reversed