Mohammed Vrs Berube [2021] GHASC 101 (1 December 2021)

Mohammed Vrs Berube [2021] GHASC 101 (1 December 2021)

The Supreme Court found that the issue of whether the plaintiff was a moneylender or engaged in foreign exchange business was not properly pleaded or supported by evidence, and the transaction did not fall under the Foreign Exchange Act, 2006 (Act 723). The principal amount had not been paid, and the award of general damages was justified. The appeal lacked merit and was dismissed.

Citation
[2021] GHASC 101
Parties
Defendant/appellant/appellant: Mr. Joseph Mustapha Mohammed; Plaintiff/respondent/respondent: Mr. Laurent Berube
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Ghana
Judgment Date
1 December 2021
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Money Lending, Foreign Exchange, Breach of Contract, Damages, Illegality of Contract, Pleadings
Source Language
English
Contract Law Money Lending Foreign Exchange Breach of Contract Damages Illegality of Contract Pleadings

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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr. Joseph Mustapha Mohammed

Defendant/appellant/appellant

Mr. Laurent Berube

Plaintiff/respondent/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the lending of money in foreign currency without a license was illegal and unenforceable under the Foreign Exchange Act, 2006 (Act 723)
  2. 2 Whether the Court of Appeal erred in ordering payment of GHC640,000.00 when it was allegedly already paid
  3. 3 Whether the award of GHC20,000.00 as general damages for breach of contract was justified

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court found that the issue of whether the plaintiff was a moneylender or engaged in foreign exchange business was not properly pleaded or supported by evidence, and the transaction did not fall under the Foreign Exchange Act, 2006 (Act 723). The principal amount had not been paid, and the award of general damages was justified. The appeal lacked merit and was dismissed.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Judgment of the Court of Appeal affirmed
  • Defendant to pay GHC640,000.00 to plaintiff