CAPE TRADING COMPANY LTD. VRS. KWARTENG (AC/215/2015) [2025] GHAHC 25 (17 March 2025)

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF JUDICATURE IN THE COMMERCIAL DIVISION (COURT 1) OF THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE ACCRA, HELD ON MONDAY THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE HER LADYSHIP JUSTICE SHEILA MINTA SUIT NO. AC/215/2015 CAPE TRADING COMPANY LTD. - PLAINTIFF VRS. MICHAEL KWARTENG - DEFENDANT ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT INTRODUCTION This case an employer-employee relationship that culminated in instrument of indebtedness and enforcement of mortgage between the Plaintiff and the Defendant. Plaintiff and the Defendant entered into an agreement on 17th September, 2009, wherein the Defendant agreed to repay the said amount of GHS51,400.00 within three (3) months with an interest rate of 32% per annum resulting from a discovered embezzlement perpetrated by the Defendant. That the Defendant as security for the repayment executed a Mortgage Deed in respect of his residential property in a Mortgage Agreement dated 10th December, 2009. Meanwhile Plaintiff reported the matter to the police who charged the Defendant for various offences including stealing but the criminal matter was not prosecuted to its logical conclusion. The Defendant on the other hand averred that he did not embezzle any sum as alleged and that he was coerced into executing the said agreements with the Plaintiff as same were procured by undue influence as a pre-condition for his release from the police P a g e 1 | 16 SUIT NO. AC/215/2015 – CAPE TRADING COMPANY LTD. VS. MICHAEL KWARTENG custody. That these agreements having been so procured be set aside as unconscionable and which should disentitle the Plaintiff to its claim. SUMMARY OF PLAINTIFF’S CASE The Plaintiff in its Amended Writ of Summons and Statement of Claim sought the following reliefs from the Defendant:- a. The payment of the sum of GHS51,400.00 being the outstanding balance owed the Plaintiff as at 10th December, 2009. b. Interest on the above sum at the contractual rate of 32% per annum from 10th December, 2009 till date of final judgment and thereafter interest on the sum at the prevailing bank rate from date of judgement till date of final payment. c. In addition to or in the alternative, an order for judicial sale of the Defendant’s residential property number G3 Manet Housing Estates, Nungua Accra used as security for the embezzled sum. d. Cost e. Any other remedy as the Court may consider fit to order. The case of the Plaintiff is that the Defendant, its former employee during the year 2008 and 2009 embezzled its funds amounting to GH51,400.00. That the Plaintiff noticed during the said period some irregularities in respect of the high cost of the Plaintiff’s expenditure which led to an internal audit and police investigations. The Plaintiff’s narrative is that the audit revealed that the Defendant had embezzled the said sum and for which Defendant admitted to the fraud and undertook to repay the said sum. Plaintiff stated that consequently, an agreement was entered into between the parties wherein the Defendant committed to repay the amount within three months, at an interest rate of 32% per annum on the embezzled sum of GHS51,400.00. When Defendant could not settle the embezzled sum, it provided security for the repayment, by mortgaging his residential property located in Accra by a Mortgage Agreement dated 10th December, 2009. According to the Plaintiff, police forensic investigations of the P a g e 2 | 16 SUIT NO. AC/215/2015 – CAPE TRADING COMPANY LTD. VS. MICHAEL KWARTENG modus used by the Defendant in the embezzlement also revealed some forgeries perpetrated by the Defendant. It is this agreement between the parties that the Plaintiff is seeking to enforce before this Court as the Defendant failed to pay for the said sum as contained in the agreement of the parties and fortified by a mortgage agreement. In support of the Plaintiff’s case the following documents were tendered in evidence. 1. Exhibit “A” – an agreement dated 17th September, 2009 to repay monies unlawfully taken from Cape Trading 2. Exhibit “B” – Deed of Mortgage dated 10th December, 2009 executed by the Defendant in favour of the Plaintiff. 3. Exhibit “C” – Police Report dated 21st June, 2011. SUMMARY OF DEFENDANT’S CASE The Defendant’s defence to the Plaintiff’s claim simply put is that he did not embezzle any sum as alleged by the Plaintiff and that the purported agreement between the parties was procured by undue influence as a pre-condition to his release from police custody at the Police Headquarters where he was incarcerated for three (3) days. It is the Defendant’s narrative that the Managing Director of the Plaintiff caused his arrest and detention and further that the threatening posture of the police compelled him to sign the agreement to secure his release from custody. That he was subsequently arraigned before the Circuit Court Accra on charges of stealing which was never prosecuted to its logical conclusion. According to him when it became obvious that he could not pay the sum claimed by the Plaintiff he was further pressurized into executing a deed of mortgage in respect of his only property that was acquired way before he joined the Plaintiff Company. The Defendant therefore prayed the Court to set aside the agreements between the parties on the grounds that same were executed by coercion which ought not be endorsed nor enforced by the Court. The Defendant did not tender any exhibits in support of his claim. P a g e 3 | 16 SUIT NO. AC/215/2015 – CAPE TRADING COMPANY LTD. VS. MICHAEL KWARTENG ISSUE FOR TRIAL At the close pleadings the following issues were set down for trial: - 1. Whether or not the Defendant embezzled the sum of GHS51,400.00 while in the employment of the Plaintiff? 2. Whether or not the Mortgage of H/No G3 Manet Housing Estate Nungua, Accra used as security by the Defendant for the embezzled sum of GHS51,400.00 was entered into under duress, is unconscionable or was entered into by mistake through the existence of undue influence? 3. Whether or not the Plaintiff is entitled to its claim? 4. Any other issue(s) arising from the pleadings. BURDEN OF PROOF The known rule of evidence is that where a party in a civil suit raises issues that are essential to the success of his claim, he assumes the onus of proof, be he the Plaintiff or the Defendant who makes a Counterclaim. The discharge of this evidential burden requires the party to go beyond merely repeating his averments in his pleadings on oath and produce evidence of other facts and circumstances from which the Court can ascertain whose claim is more probable than the other. See Majolagbe vrs. Larbi & ors. [1959] GLR 190 at page 192, where the Court stated:- “Proof in law is the establishment of facts by proper legal means. Where a party makes an averment capable of proof in some positive way, e.g. by producing documents, description of things, reference to other facts, instances, or circumstances, and his averment is denied, he does not prove it by merely going into the witness-box and repeating that averment on oath, or having it repeated on oath by his witness. He proves it by producing other evidence of facts and circumstances, from which the Court can be satisfied that what he avers is true.” The Plaintiff is duty bound to establish the requisite degree of belief in my mind by adducing enough evidence to show that the likelihood of the circumstances it alleges is P a g e 4 | 16 SUIT NO. AC/215/2015 – CAPE TRADING COMPANY LTD. VS. MICHAEL KWARTENG more probable than not. And the same principles apply to the Defendant in respect of any counter assertions made. But where a party has admitted a fact in controversy, no principle of law requires the other party to prove that admitted fact as was held in the Court of Appeal case of West African Enterprises Ltd vrs. Western Hardwood Enterprise Ltd [1995-96] 1 GLR 155 -176. The only exceptions to this principle that I can think of is where that admission is contradicted subsequently by showing that it was made through a palpable mistake or coercion or that no such admission was made in the first place or that admission was obtained by fraud. For an admission of a party to be binding and conclusive against that party, it must be deliberate, clear and unequivocal statement about a material fact in issue. Additionally, in the case of Re: Ashaley Botwe Lands: Adjetey Agbosu & Ors vrs. Kotey & Ors. [2003-2004] SCGLR 420 @ 425, Brobbey J.S.C (as he then was stated that it is trite learning that: - “A litigant who is a Defendant in a civil case does not need to prove anything. The Plaintiff who took the Defendant to Court has to prove what he claims he is entitled to from the Defendant.” Sections 10 – 14 however require parties to discharge their burden of persuasion regarding allegations of fact made by each of them. ANALYSIS Having stated the law on evidential burden, I will now proceed to analyse the issues as set out above. ISSUE 1 Whether or not the Defendant embezzled the sum of GHS51,400.00 while in the employment of the Plaintiff? The Plaintiff’s case is that the Defendant had allegedly embezzled a total sum of GHS51,400.00 following an audit purported to have been conducted by the Plaintiff P a g e 5 | 16 SUIT NO. AC/215/2015 – CAPE TRADING COMPANY LTD. VS. MICHAEL KWARTENG sometime in 2009 when it noticed that the Plaintiff’s expenditure had gone up. It is the Plaintiff’s assertion that it noticed some inconsistencies with some figures on original receipts and cash vouchers prepared by the Defendant. The inconsistencies were noticed when the two Directors and shareholders of the Company, (that is the Plaintiff’s Witness and his wife) conducted an audit which revealed that Defendant has embezzled the company’s funds. The Defendant was then made to sign Exhibit “A” as a repayment schedule for the embezzled funds and subsequently secured by a Mortgaged agreement Exhibit “B”. On 28th October, 2024 the following were recorded when Plaintiff’s witness was being crossed-examined by Counsel for the Defendant. Q: You made an allegation to the Police that he had embezzled funds for the company, is that not the case. A: Yes, he was caught stealing, misappropriation of funds, forged documents. Q: So, when you caught him stealing, how much did you find on him? A: In his pocket we found nothing, we never searched him. Q: I am suggesting to you that the Defendant did not steal any money belonging to the company. A: It is not true. Q: In paragraph 6 of your witness statement – read out. You caused an audit of his books. A: The Company Directors (my wife and I) did an internal audit. Q: And what was your findings. A: The findings were that there were a lot of receipts forged, altered and tippex. Q: Did your wife and yourself issue an audited report on what you found? A: We have a excel sheet with all the facts and figures. Q: Did you discuss this with the Defendant? A: Yes, we showed it to him. Q: Did you discuss it with him? A: Yes, we showed and discussed it with him. P a g e 6 | 16 SUIT NO. AC/215/2015 – CAPE TRADING COMPANY LTD. VS. MICHAEL KWARTENG Q: Did you give him a copy? A: I am sure we did. Q: I am suggesting to you that you did not discuss your so-called audit report with the Defendant. A: That is not true. Q: I am further suggesting to you that you did not give him a copy of the alleged audit report. A: He was confronted and given a copy. Q: Do you have a copy of the alleged audit report as part of your documents filed in this Court? A: I have a copy on my laptop but it has not been filed in this Court. We are not told the background and adequate competence of those who conducted the alleged audit in which it was found that the Defendant had embezzled some funds. That report is also not before the Court to ascertain the basis of the conclusion that some funds were actually stolen by any evidence. The police investigation and prosecution was not concluded for its finding to be used as a guide for the determination of whether or not the Defendant embezzled the Plaintiff’s funds. I am therefore unable to hold this issue of embezzlement of funds by the Defendant in favour of the Plaintiff. ISSUE 2 Whether or not the Mortgage of H/No G3 Manet Housing Estate Nungua, Accra used as security by the Defendant for the embezzled sum of GHC 51,400.00 was entered into under duress, is unconscionable or was entered into by mistake through the existence of undue influence? Now what are the events that led to the execution of the documents that Plaintiff is seeking to enforce against the Defendant? Plaintiff’s case is that the Defendant stole from it and was found out and undertook to refund the sum embezzled by entering into some contractual arrangement with the Plaintiff which led to the execution of agreement in P a g e 7 | 16 SUIT NO. AC/215/2015 – CAPE TRADING COMPANY LTD. VS. MICHAEL KWARTENG which the Defendant committed to pay the embezzled sum with interest at 32% per annum and as further security for payment of the embezzled sum, Defendant executed a mortgage deed in respect of his house in favour of the Plaintiff. The Defendant was also arrested and put before Court seeking to retrieve the stolen funds. The Defendant’s assertion is that he never admitted to committing fraud and that the Plaintiff’s Managing Director had him incarcerated in police cells for days and was coerced into making admissions and executed those documents Plaintiff is seeking to enforce. To the extent that the Defendant relies on coercion by the Police in executing the documents Exhibits “A” and “B”, I respectfully find it disingenuous and lacking in merit. This is what the undertaking signed by the Defendant and Plaintiff’s representative as contained in Exhibit “A” looks like; and for clarity I will reproduce same. “17th September 2009 Dear Mr. Kwarteng, MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING RE: AGREEMENT TO REPAY BACK MONIES UNLAWFULLY TAKEN FROM CAPE TRADING LIMITED COFFERS An agreement to repay missing monies from Cape Trading Company Limited coffers for which you were responsible is made this 17th Day of September, 2009 between you and Cape Trading Company Limited. This agreement holds only till the C.E.O. Mr. Ali Traboulsi arrives from Germany which will be subject to amendment by the C.E.O. The agreement for now is as follows: - 1. An amount of GHS38,965.84 plus interest of 32% amounting to a total of GHS48,316.84 will be settled by Mr. Michael Kwarteng. 2. The amount is what has been discovered up to date. Subsequent amounts found missing will be added with interest. P a g e 8 | 16 SUIT NO. AC/215/2015 – CAPE TRADING COMPANY LTD. VS. MICHAEL KWARTENG 3. Mr. Kwarteng agrees to pay an initial amount of GHS900.00 today the 17th of September, 2009 out of his leave allowance to Cape Trading Company Limited. 4. The remaining GHS47,416.84 will be settled with GHS500.00 out of Mr. Kwarteng’s monthly salary. 5. All payments will be receipted by the General Manager. 6. You have the option to settle the whole amount in full and the interest will be waived off or on monthly basis with interest and collateral. Signed: Signed: Mr. Michael Kwarteng Mr. Tabbica” The document obviously is a letter to Defendant and was not written by the Defendant, it was written by the Plaintiff and signed by its General Manager Mr. Tabbica and Defendant was made to also sign same. The Defendant’s case is that he was arrested by the police at the instance of the Plaintiff and was detained for three (3) days. His story is that for fear of being further incarcerated he was coerced into signing Exhibit “A”, and when it became obvious that he couldn’t make payments for the sum he was made to commit, he was further made to execute a deed of mortgage (Exhibit “B”) in respect of his only personal house which he acquired even before going into the Plaintiff’s employment. In support of its claim the Plaintiff also attached a Police report dated 21st June, 2011 Exhibit “C”. In the said police report, it stated as follows:- “… The suspect was employed by Cape Trading Co. in December 2006 as the Financial Controller. In August 2009 the complainant realised that the company’s expenditure had gone up, so he ordered for an audit to be conducted. It was found during the auditing exercise that, there were inconsistencies with the figures on the original receipts and cash vouchers prepared by the suspect. It was also detected that the suspect had altered the receipts and vouchers thus resulting in a loss of GHS7,600.50 to the company. The suspect P a g e 9 | 16 SUIT NO. AC/215/2015 – CAPE TRADING COMPANY LTD. VS. MICHAEL KWARTENG earlier admitted before the Managing Director of the Company and promised to refund the money but in his cautioned statement to the police the suspect denied the allegation. As a result, specimen handwriting was taken from the suspect for forensic analysis. The Crime Laboratory in its report concluded that the documents were forged by the suspect Michael Kwarteng. The suspect was therefore charged with the offences of Forgery of document, Altering forged document and stealing. The accused was arraigned before Cocoa Affairs Circuit Court 10 presided over by H/H Denis Bimpong on 27/7/10. He pleaded not guilty to the charges and was granted bail in the sum of GHS40,000.00 with two sureties. Case is still on trial, please.” It is my finding that Exhibit “A” was made and signed by the parties in September 2009 when no Police arrest had taken place. Furthermore, it took about 3 months for Exhibit “B” to be signed by the Defendant. His story of coercion by police pressure as he alleges is not credible. The Defendant averred that he was threatened of further incarceration and out of fear he was coerced to sign Exhibits “A” and “B” and had the following recorded during his cross-examination by Counsel for the Plaintiff on 22nd November, 2024. Q: By paragraphs 4 to 9 of your Witness Statement, it is your testimony that you executed Exhibits “A” and “B” in view of the threatening posture of the police and this compelled you in signing these exhibits, not so? A: Yes my Lady. … Plaintiff’s Counsel submitted that this assertion of the Defendant that the three days incarceration was what coerced him into signing those documents is not probable as the agreement to pay the embezzled sum was dated 17th September, 2009, the mortgage P a g e 10 | 16 SUIT NO. AC/215/2015 – CAPE TRADING COMPANY LTD. VS. MICHAEL KWARTENG agreement was also dated 10th December, 2009 and from Exhibit “C” this matter was reported to the police on 10th May, 2010 after the execution of Exhibits “A” and “B”. The Defendant’s Counsel also submitted that the Defendant was placed in police cells and this testimony was not controverted by the Plaintiff and therefore stood unchallenged. Counsel for the Defendant referred the Court to the case of John Kofi Ampratwum vrs. Atta Sarpong & Kwaku Acquah Civil Appeal No. H1/22/2005 where the Court stated thus; “The position of the law is that evidence which is conspicuously left unchallenged by a party is therefore deem to be accepted by or binding on that party.” Defendant’s position is that he was unduly pressurized into signing those documents. The Defendant prayed the Court to set aside the Memorandum of understanding and the Deed of Mortgage as unconscionable. On the doctrine of unconscionability, Date-Bah J.S.C in CFC Construction Company (WA) Ltd & Read vrs. Attitsogbe [2005-2006] SCGLR 858 stated as follows: - “In our opinion, therefore, the Courts in Ghana have the right to set aside as unconscionable any dealing, whether by contract or by gift, where on account of the special disability of one of the parties, he or she is placed at a serious disadvantage in relation to the other. The categories of special disability should not be regarded as closed. Those listed … are a useful but not necessarily exhaustive starting point. Poverty or need of any kind, sickness, age, sex, infirmity of body or mind, drunkenness, illiteracy or lack of education, lack of assistance or explanation where assistance or explanation is necessary: these are all circumstances which in the right context can justify the Courts' intervention on the basis of the equitable principles embodied in the doctrine of unconscionable bargain. Where a party successfully makes a case that he or she has a special disability, or the facts of a case lend themselves to an application of the doctrine, the onus devolves on to the dominant party to demonstrate that the transaction was fair, just and reasonable. If the dominant party fails to show that the transaction was fair, just and reasonable, the Court is entitled to set the transaction aside.” P a g e 11 | 16 SUIT NO. AC/215/2015 – CAPE TRADING COMPANY LTD. VS. MICHAEL KWARTENG The facts in proof of the undue influence and unconscionability of the instruments executed by the Defendant are not made out. Looking at the timelines between the execution of Exhibit “A” and then Exhibit “B” and finally the Police assistance do not make out the story of coercion by police or otherwise. I am inclined to go with the position of the Plaintiff’s Counsel. Though the Attisogbe case cited (supra) by the Defendant looks attractive, I am unable to see how from September to December the Defendant would be labouring under some undue influence to sign the mortgage. Then come to the dock and tell the Court that he had to sign these documents of 2009 when a report was made to the Police in 2010. The law is settled that, parties to a contract would not be permitted to avoid the contract unless, there are valid lawful reasons to do so. It is not the duty of the Court to make contract for parties. Clearly, where the terms of a contract have been reduced into writing, the Court would interpret them to give effect to the intention of the parties. See Poku vrs. Commercial Bank [1989-90] 2 GLR 37 CA. It cannot be said the Defendant was coerced into signing the agreements. I resolve Issue 2 in favour of the Plaintiff. ISSUE 4 – Any other issue/s arising out of the Pleadings During trial the issue of capacity was brought to the fore but Counsel for the Plaintiff in his address failed to deal with same. As stated in the case of Yorkwa vrs. Due [1993-94] GBR 255 capacity goes to the root of a matter and did Plaintiff have the capacity to maintain this suit till the end? On 2nd July, 2024 the Court the following ensued when Plaintiff’s witness was being cross-examined by Counsel for the Defendant:- Q: You remember you left Cape Trading Company Limited? When did you come back to Cape Trading Limited? A: I never left Cape Trading Company. I was the Managing Director till the Company was sold about fourteen years ago. Q: What was the position of Mahammed Tabbica. P a g e 12 | 16 SUIT NO. AC/215/2015 – CAPE TRADING COMPANY LTD. VS. MICHAEL KWARTENG A: He was the General Manager. Q: Can you be kind enough to tell us who bought Cape Trading Company Limited? A: Forewin Limited. If the Plaintiff Company was sold to Forewin Limited some 14 years ago does the Plaintiff still have the capacity to maintain this suit as the proper Plaintiff? There was an attempt to address this issue by Counsel for the Defendant but he was unfortunately short of the critical material that he needed to complete the effort. The Plaintiff issued this Writ against the Defendant on 24th November, 2014 and left and allow the case to lie fallow without prosecution of same for several years. By the Plaintiff’s own testimony, the Plaintiff Company was sold some ten (10) years ago to Forewin Limited. The evidence to establish that the Plaintiff Company got liquidated or its name got changed did not emerge. If Forewin bought the shares of the shareholders of the Plaintiff and did not liquidate it, then it will continue in existence and have the capacity to sue. In Kesseke Akoto Dugbartey Sappor & 2 Others vrs. Solomon Dugbartey Sappor & 4 Others [J4/46/2020] the Supreme Court per Prof Mensa-Bonsu JSC observed:- “What is capacity? The Black’s Law Dictionary defines ‘capacity’ or ‘standing’ as “A party’s right to make a legal claim or seek judicial enforcement of a duty or right. Thus, one’s ability to appear in Court to make a claim, hinges on whether one is recognized in law as having sufficient interest in any matter to seek a hearing on any particular issue. The sufficient interest must remain throughout the life of the case, or one’s legal ability to stay connected with a case making its way through the Courts would be lost.” In the case of Visual Rights Society vrs. Fiesta Royale Hotel Suit No. H1/88/2013, cited by Counsel for the Defendant, the Court of Appeal on the issue of capacity to a suit stated thus:- “It is axiomatic that capacity is to sue or locus standi is always a crucial matter in any civil suit when challenged. For a suit to be competent for adjudication by a Court, there must be at least a competent Plaintiff and a competent Defendant in the sense that both were juristic person with locus standi to sue and be sued. Where the existing Plaintiff or P a g e 13 | 16 SUIT NO. AC/215/2015 – CAPE TRADING COMPANY LTD. VS. MICHAEL KWARTENG Defendant lacks competence, it renders the action incompetent regardless of the merits and he Court is robbed of its requisite jurisdiction to determine the underlying claim.” A Plaintiff’s capacity to sue must be maintained till the end to the case but it appears the Plaintiff’s capacity came into doubt when the Company was sold to Forewin Limited some 10 years ago by Plaintiff’s own showing. Had capacity been lost along the way with no amendments being made by any of the parties that would have disenabled the Court to grant to the Plaintiff the reliefs being sought against the Defendant. However, as things stand now, the non-existence of the legal personality of the Plaintiff has not been proved. Consequently, I am unable to resolve the issue of capacity against the Plaintiff as this staged. ISSUE 3 Whether or not the Plaintiff is entitled to its claim? From the analysis above it is the mind of this Court that the Defendant could not establish its claim of duress or coercion in signing the documents sought to be enforced by the Plaintiff. The challenge that I however have, is that the Plaintiff could not tell the Court how much of the sum of Exhibit “A” had been paid over the period. There is no evidence on record of the audit conducted by the Plaintiff and what deductions had been made. To the extent that the power balance between the parties when Exhibits “A” and “B” were signed, I grant Plaintiff judgement in the sum of GHS26,000.00 with interest thereon at the commercial rate of interest from 2009 till date of judgment. CONCLUSION The Plaintiff’s action against the Defendant for the reliefs endorsed on the Writ of Summons therefore succeeds in the sum of GHS26,000.00 with interest at the prevailing commercial rate for the reasons stated above. The Plaintiff’s relief (c) being a prayer in the alternative for the judicial sale of the Defendant’s residential property No. G3 Manet Housing Estates, Nungua used a P a g e 14 | 16 SUIT NO. AC/215/2015 – CAPE TRADING COMPANY LTD. VS. MICHAEL KWARTENG security for the embezzled sum cannot be granted as same was only stamped and not registered and therefore not enforceable as security. I award cost of Ten Thousand Ghana (GHS10,000.00) in favour of the Plaintiff against the Defendant. (SGD.) SHEILA MINTA, J. JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT REPRESENTATIONS PARTIES: ABSENT COUNSEL: FRANK ASAMOAH, ESQ., WITH ANNA MANSAH KROFAH, ESQ., HOLDING BRIEF FOR WALLACE BRUCE CATHLINE, ESQ., FOR PLAINTIFF – PRESENT COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT - ABSENT AUTHORITIES: 1. MAJOLAGBE VRS. LARBI & ORS. [1959] GLR 190 AT PAGE 192 P a g e 15 | 16 SUIT NO. AC/215/2015 – CAPE TRADING COMPANY LTD. VS. MICHAEL KWARTENG 2. WEST AFRICAN ENTERPRISES LTD VRS. WESTERN HARDWOOD ENTERPRISE LTD [1995-96] 1 GLR 155 -176 3. RE: ASHALEY BOTWE LANDS: ADJETEY AGBOSU & ORS VRS. KOTEY & ORS. [2003-2004] SCGLR 420 @ 425 4. AMPRATWUM VRS. ATTA SARPONG & KWAKU ACQUAH CIVIL APPEAL NO. H1/22/2005 5. CFC CONSTRUCTION COMPANY (WA) LTD & READ VRS. ATTITSOGBE [2005-2006] SCGLR 858 6. POKU VRS. COMMERCIAL BANK [1989-90] 2 GLR 37 CA 7. YORKWA VRS. DUE [1993-94] GBR 255 8. KESSEKE AKOTO DUGBARTEY SAPPOR & 2 OTHERS VRS. SOLOMON DUGBARTEY SAPPOR & 4 OTHERS [J4/46/2020] 9. VISUAL RIGHTS SOCIETY VRS. FIESTA ROYALE HOTEL SUIT NO. H1/88/2013 P a g e 16 | 16 SUIT NO. AC/215/2015 – CAPE TRADING COMPANY LTD. VS. MICHAEL KWARTENG