Asamoah Vrs Nyamekye [2019] GHASC 23 (8 May 2019)

Asamoah Vrs Nyamekye [2019] GHASC 23 (8 May 2019)

The appellant failed to adduce credible evidence to prove the existence of an outstanding debt of GHC 40,000.00 as at September 2012, or that he took a new facility to settle such a debt. Bank statements and expert evidence showed no such debt existed, and the respondent had paid in excess of the total cost of the facility. The Court of Appeal was correct in dismissing the appellant's claim and ordering the return of the respondent's lease document.

Citation
[2019] GHASC 23
Parties
Plaintiff/respondent/appellant: Eric Kofi Asamoah; Defendant/appellant/respondent: Stephen Nyamekye
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Ghana
Judgment Date
8 May 2019
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Final Appellate Judgment
Outcome
appeal dismissed; Court of Appeal decision affirmed
Legal Topics
Overdraft Facility, Burden of Proof, Accounting and Rendition of Accounts, Interest Rates, Evidence Evaluation
Source Language
English
Banking Law Contract Law Civil Procedure Overdraft Facility Burden of Proof Accounting and Rendition of Accounts Interest Rates Evidence Evaluation

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

Parties

Eric Kofi Asamoah

Plaintiff/respondent/appellant

Stephen Nyamekye

Defendant/appellant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Final Appellate Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant proved an outstanding debt of GHC 40,000.00 against the respondent as at September 2012
  2. 2 Whether the appellant discharged the evidential burden to support his claim for recovery and interest
  3. 3 Whether the Court of Appeal erred in relying on the testimony of DW3

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant failed to adduce credible evidence to prove the existence of an outstanding debt of GHC 40,000.00 as at September 2012, or that he took a new facility to settle such a debt. Bank statements and expert evidence showed no such debt existed, and the respondent had paid in excess of the total cost of the facility. The Court of Appeal was correct in dismissing the appellant's claim and ordering the return of the respondent's lease document.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed; Court of Appeal decision affirmed

Orders

  • Appellant's action dismissed
  • Respondent's lease document to be returned to him