IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF JUDICATURE
IN THE HIGH COURT (GENERAL JURISDICTION DIVISION)
ACCRA - A.D 2018
SHAIBU AMADU - (Plaintiff)
HFC BANK GHANA LIMITED - (Defendant)
DATE: 11 TH MAY, 2018
SUIT NO: AP 208/2015
JUDGES: JUSTICE KWEKU T. ACKAAH- BOAFO
VICTOR KWADJOGA ADAWUDU FOR THE PLAINTIFF
DOE TSIKATA WITH MATILDA IDUN DONKOR THE DEFENDANT
 The events that give rise to this litigation have their origin in a routine visit the Plaintiff made to the Abossey Okai Branch of the Defendant, HFC Bank Ghana Limited on July 14, 2015 to make a deposit into his account. Little did the Plaintiff know that the visit will set in motion the allegation of possession of counterfeit currency, arrest by the Bureau of National Investigation (BNI) and a lawsuit to claim what he believes is his legitimate due.
 The Plaintiff opened an account with the Defendant Bank’s Abbossey Okai branch and on 16 June2015 deposited a total amount of €195,000.00 in two tranches into the account. He later made some withdrawals. He made another deposit on July 14, 2015 in an amount of €276,500. According to him the amount was counted and a receipt was issued and he later received an alert on his telephone to confirm the deposit. It is his case that following a telephone call made to him by the Branch Manager he went to the branch ostensibly to negotiate the rate of Euros to be transferred into his account but to his shock and consternation he was arrested by officials of the BNI for depositing counterfeit currency. The Defendant has subsequently frozen his account and refused to hand over the deposits made. He has therefore instituted the instant action for order directed at the Defendant to pay back to him the deposits made and also damages for breach of contract and costs.
ii. The Action
 Per an Amended Writ of Summons sealed in this registry on October 14, 2015 the Plaintiff claimed against the Defendant the following reliefs:
i. Payment to the Plaintiff forthwith; the sum of Two Hundred and Seventy-Six Thousand, Five Hundred Euros (€276,500) which the Plaintiff holds in his savings account number: 0084029773016 held with Defendant Bank.
ii. Payment to the Plaintiff forthwith; the sum of Eleven Thousand, Eight Hundred and Eighty Five Ghana Cedis (GH¢11,885.00) standing in the Plaintiff’s Current Account Number 0084041181019 held with the Defendant Bank in the name of ‘BIG BRAIN ENGINEERING & TRADING ENTERPRISE’ and which the Plaintiff trades under.
iv. Legal fees incurred in the pursuit of the instant matter
v. Cost and any other order(s) deem fit by this Honourable Court
 After the service of the original writ issued on August 14, 2015 and its accompanying statement of claim on the Defendant, Appearance was entered by Reindorf Chambers (Lawyers) on September 29, 2015 and a 17 paragraph Statement of Defence was filed on November 3, 2015 together with a Counterclaim by the Defendant. The Statement of Defence was later amended with the leave of the Court and the Amended Statement of Defence and Counterclaim was filed on May 11, 2017. The Plaintiff filed an Amended Reply and Defence to Counterclaim also with the leave of the Court on May 23, 2017.
iii. The Defence & Reply
 The Defendant denied substantially, all the allegations and claims of the Plaintiff. It was averred in paragraphs 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 12 and 15A of the Amended Statement of Defence in particular that:
“4. In response to paragraph 3 and 4 of the Amended Statement of Claim, the Defendant says that on 16 June 2015, the Plaintiff opened with its abovementioned Branch a Euro-denominated savings account in his name numbered 0084029773016 (“the Euro account”) and deposited therein in three instalments counterfeit notes in €500 denominations totaling €199,000.
5. Subsequently on 14 July 2015, the Plaintiff again deposited in the Euro account counterfeit notes also in €500 denominations totaling €276.500.
7. In response to paragraphs 6, 7, 8 and 9 of the Amended Statement of Claim, the Defendant says that between 16 June and 2 July 2015, at the request of the Plaintiff the following amounts indicated in paragraph 7 and 8 hereof and in all totaling GH¢932,200 were paid to him by the Defendant in respect of the Cedi account and the Euro account
(i) GH¢18,720 on 16 June 2015;
(ii) GH¢96,200 on 22 June 2015;
(iii) GH¢19,280 on 2 July 2015;
(iv) GH¢100,000 on 2 July 2015;
(v) GH¢200,000 on 2 July 2015;
(vi) GH¢200,000 on 2 July 2015; and
(vii) GH¢78, 000 on 2 July 2015
8. On 3 July 2015, following the transfer at the Plaintiff’s request of the equivalent of €50,000 from the Euro account to the cedi account an amount totaling GH¢220,000 was withdrawn by the Plaintiff from the latter account in the following instalment on the same day:
(ii) GH¢50,000; and
9. The amounts totaling €475,500 pleaded in paragraph 4 and 5 hereof were credited to the Euro account by the Defendant’s staff and amounts totaling GH¢932,200 paid by the Defendant and received by the Plaintiff under a mistake of fact namely, that the currency notes deposited by the Plaintiff in the Euro account were unbeknown to the Defendant counterfeit.
12. The Defendant in response to paragraph 11 of the Amended Statement of Claim says that it did not at first detect that the currency notes deposited by the Plaintiff were counterfeit and consequently the Euro account was credited with the equivalent amounts.
15A. The currency notes deposited by the Plaintiff with the Defendant’s Abbosey Okai Branch are proceeds of a dealing in foreign exchange engaged in by the Plaintiff together with others without the requisite licence or authorization under the Foreign Exchange Act, 2006 (Act 732) and therefore, illegal.
 The Defendant further averred that the terms of contract between it and the Plaintiff was such that the Defendant “could exercise its general lien or any similar right it is entitled to including the right to combine and consolidate all or any of the Plaintiff’s account with the Defendant, and the right to set off or transfer any sum or sums standing to the credit of any one or more of such accounts against liabilities in any other account”. The Defendant then Counterclaimed against the Plaintiff for the recovery of money:
(a) as had and received by the Plaintiff to the use of the Defendant the amounts totaling GH¢932,200 paid to the Plaintiff on 16th June 2015, 22nd June 2015, 2nd July 2015 and 3rd July 2015 against counterfeit Euro notes deposited by him in respect of a Euro account held with the Defendant Bank;
(b) Interest thereon at the prevailing commercial bank lending rates from 3rd July, 2015 to the date of final payment;
(c) Costs; and
(d) Further or other relief.
 The battle lines were clearly drawn after the filing of the Defence and Counterclaim. The Plaintiff in the Amended Reply and Defence to Counterclaim filed vehemently denied all the averments contained in the Statement of Defence and specifically averred that “all the Euro deposits made and deposited, were genuine and real and for that matter he is fully entitled to the reliefs he is seeking with interest and punitive damages for breach of contract”. The Plaintiff further averred that the Defendant has a duty of care to protect his monies and has no lien or right to combine or transfer monies to and from any of Plaintiffs account without recourse to Plaintiff and valid mandate.
 At the close of the pleadings, both parties filed issues for determination by the Court. The Plaintiff formulated four issues including the omnibus issue and the Defendant also formulated a single additional issue. All the issues were adopted by the Court and same were set down. The issues were as follows:-
Whether or not the money deposited on the 16th day of June, 2015 was checked and received by the Defendant Bank and same was credited to Plaintiff’s account.
Whether or not the money deposited on the 14th day of July, 2015 was checked and received by the Defendant Bank and same was credited to Plaintiff’s account.Whether or not the said money deposited by the Plaintiff were genuine or counterfeit currency notes.
Any other issues arising out of the pleadings
The single Additional Issue was;
Whether or not the Defendant is entitled to its Counterclaim.
 The trial of the case commenced on Friday October 21, 2016 and the cross-examination of was completed on Friday November 18, 2016. The Plaintiff called Abubakar Jibril and Haruna Shaibu as witnesses and then closed his case. The Defendant opened its defence on June 23, 2017 by calling Frank Lawoe, the head of recoveries and collections with the Defendant’s bank. The Defendant also subpoenaed Madam Adwoa Konadu Torto who is a Manager at the Bank of Ghana and Detective Seargeant Kessie Akrasi who works with the BNI to close its case.
v. The Evidence Received by Court:
 The Plaintiff’s case consisted of the Plaintiff and his witnesses’ testimony in court and the documentary evidence he submitted in support of the claim, marked in the record as Exhibits “A” to “E”. Giving evidence in support of the claim, Mr. Shaibu Amadu testified in terms of the statement of claim and the adopted witness statement filed. Let us hear from the Plaintiff as to what happened when he testified at trial as per the adopted witness statement starting from paragraph 4. I opened and operated both Savings and Current Accounts with the Defendant Bank at it Abossey Okai Branch. The Savings Account was denominated in Euro with the number 0084029773016 and the Current Account with Account Number 0084041181019 was operated under the name ‘Big Brain Engineering & Trading Enterprise’.
On or about the 16th of June, 2015 I deposited a total sum of One Hundred and Ninety Five Thousand Euros (€195,000.00) into my Savings Account Number 0084029773016 with the Defendant Bank. According to the Plaintiff One Hundred and Fifty Thousand Euros (€150,000.00) and a further Forty-Five Thousand Euros (€45,000.00) was later withdrawn for some family business activities without any problems whatsoever. The Plaintiff tendered the Cash Deposit Slips given to him evidencing the transaction and same was marked as Exhibit “B” Series.
Mr. Shaibu Amadu further testified that at the time the accounts were opened, the exchange rate was volatile and fluctuating, thus foreign currency was losing value and the business forex exchange was unstable. Plaintiff thus kept the Euro Account and always instructed the Defendant Bank to transfer some amounts into Cedi which is cashed for business operations as and when the need arose.
Further Mr. Amadu continued that “on the 14th day of July, 2015 I went to the Defendant Bank at Abossey Okai with one of my relative by name Abubakari Jibrim to deposit an amount of Two Hundred and Seventy-Seven Thousand Euros (€277,000.00) into my Savings Account Number 00029773016. The cashier of the Defendant Bank received the cash and checked the money using the counting machine. After checking the total amount, it was found that one (1) Five Hundred Euro (€500.00) note was rejected and detected to be counterfeit, thus reducing the amount to Two Hundred and Seventy-Six Thousand, Five Hundred Euros (€276,500.00) which was accepted by the Defendant Bank and I was accordingly issued with a Cash Deposit Slip to evidence the transaction. A transaction Notification Alert was also sent to me indicating the account had been credited”. The Plaintiff tendered as Exhibit “C” Series the confirmation slip issued to him after the deposit.
According to Mr. Amadu some days after he deposited the above stated, he was called by the Manager in charge of the branch located at Abossey Okai to come and negotiate a rate for the Euros to be transferred into his current account to safeguard the depreciation of the currency. He said “I went with Abubakari Jibrim to the premises of the Bank and we were arrested by the operatives of the Bureau of National Investigations (BNI) for interrogation and investigation much to our surprise and annoyance on the supposition that the money deposited was fake and counterfeit”.
He continued that “I vehemently denied the allegation when the money was checked with Defendant’s counting machines and accepted to be genuine and challenged the BNI to prosecute my cousin and I if they believe they have evidence against us as committing the purported crime. Till date, no charges have been preferred against us as the BNI could not substantiate the said allegations”.
The Plaintiff further testified that “after we were granted bail, I went to the Bank to transact business as usual and particularly to withdraw money for the business but the Defendant refused my request and did not honour it. This is in clear violation of the tenets of the law governing bank and client relationship as stipulated. However, I made deposit into my account and the Defendant Bank accepted it, thus being very insensitive and not fair to me and the business”. The Plaintiff tendered the Cash Deposit Slip evidencing the deposit made after the request and same was marked as Exhibit “D”.
The Plaintiff further testified that “since I have been helping with the family business and farming which later became Covenant Forex Bureau Limited, I have never dealt in counterfeit notes or engaged in money laundering. I have always done legitimate business and also with the family”.
Mr. Amadu also said the Defendant after receiving, checking and accepting his monies deposited, cannot deny him access to the monies with flimsy excuses causing him and his family untold hardship as substantial amount in the custody of the Defendant is the working capital of the family. He also said the Defendant’s action has brought rift among the family and brought their businesses on their knees and at the verge of collapsing. Mr. Amadu further said “the unjust behaviour of the Defendant has gone to confirm the long standing belief of some uneducated members of his family’s fear of keeping their money in the Bank, thus losing confidence in the banking system”.
 The Plaintiff also testified that the Defendant after receiving his money, checking it with the machine and equipment and crediting his account which had been in operation for some months and days cannot turn around to make grave allegations that the monies deposited were fake and counterfeit. According to Mr. Amadu the Defendant’s behaviour is unacceptable and should not be countenanced by this Honourable Court as it will be setting a dangerous precedent to encourage fraud within the banking system. He therefore prayed the Court to grant his reliefs.
 The Plaintiff also called Abubakar Jibrim whose testimony was that he assists in the family money business and cattle business after dropping out of school. He told the Court that his duties include going to the market and designated places to scout for clients who wants to change their currency and he convinces them by giving them good rates and then buy their foreign currency with Cedis. He told the Court that he works under the supervision of the Plaintiff.
 He further testified as to how he obtained the substantial amount which he accompanied the Plaintiff to go to the bank on July 14, 2015 to deposit at the Defendant bank at Abbosey Okai. He confirmed the total amount deposited to be €276,500.00. He also confirmed that days after the deposit was made he again attended at the office of the Defendant bank with the Plaintiff and were arrested by operatives of the BNI, interrogated and investigated for depositing fake and counterfeit currency. He also told the Court that he and the Plaintiff denied the allegations.
 The Plaintiff’s next witness called was Haruna Shaibu who testified that the Plaintiff and Abubakar Jibrim, PW1 are his nephews. He testified that after the Plaintiff’s education he asked him to assist with the family business so that he could eventually take over the business. He also testified that the Plaintiff is usually in charge when he is out of the country. According to Mr. Haruna Shaibu in or around the year 2000 as the businesses were growing the family registered a forex bureau upon advise so that “customers and clients will be much assured of our exchange business”. He tendered as Exhibit “E” the Forex Bureau License issued by the Bank of Ghana.
 Further, Mr. Haruna Shaibu testified that he was informed that his nephews were arrested on allegations that they had deposited fake and counterfeit money with the Defendant Bank, allegation he said he did not believe and made him angry to the extent that after their release he asked that all monies which is “substantially part of the capital for the businesses be taken and kept at home as I usually do and was informed that the Bank has refused”. He also told the Court that the refusal of the Bank to release the money has caused untold hardship to the business and rift in the family. According to him he is unable to buy cattle from Niger, Burkina Faso and the North of Ghana to Ashaiman and Accra as a result businesses are at the verge of collapsing. Based on all of the above, the Plaintiff prayed the Court to grant his reliefs.
vi. The Defendant’s Case:
 As indicated above, the Defendant gave its evidence through Mr. Frank Lawoe, a Senior Manager, Recoveries and Special Projects of the Defendant Bank. Mr. Lawoe relied entirely on his Witness Statement and the Supplementary Witness Statement filed based on the pleadings. Mr. Lawoe testified that:
i. On 16 June 2015, the Plaintiff opened a Euro-denominated savings account in his own name with the Abossey Okai Branch of the Bank. The number of that account according to him is 0084029773016. The form completed for purposes of opening the account by the Plaintiff was tendered as “1”.
ii. The witness further said on that day, the Plaintiff deposited in that Euro account an amount of €199,000 in 500 euro notes which “we subsequently found out were counterfeit. The deposits were made in three instalments of (i) €150,000, (ii) €45,000, (iii) €4,000”. Mr. Lawoe continued that;
iii. On 14th July, 2015 the Plaintiff deposited in his Euro account counterfeit notes totalling €276,500 again in 500 denominations, also with the Abossey Okai Branch of the Bank.
iv. According to Mr. Lawoe, before then, on 2nd July 2015, the Plaintiff had opened two additional accounts with the Abossey Okai Branch in the name of his sole proprietorship business, Big Brain Engineering and Tradition Enterprise. One was a Cedi Current Account, Numbered 0084041181019 and the other was a US Dollar Denomination Savings Account Numbered as 0084041183027. Copies of the account opening forms completed by the Plaintiff for those accounts were tendered as Exhibits “2” and “3”. Mr. Lawoe further testified that;
v. Between 16th June and 3rd July 2015, at the request of the Plaintiff, the following amounts in all totalling GH¢712,000 were paid to him by the Abossey Okai Branch of the Bank in respect of his Cedi and Euro Accounts.
(i) GH¢18,720 on 16th June 2015 evidenced by a cash debit form, a copy of which was tendered as “4”.
(ii) GH¢96,200 on 22nd June 2015 evidenced by a cash debit form, a copy was also tendered as “5”
(iii) GH¢19,280 on 2nd July 2015 evidence by a counter cheque numbered 045462, a copy of which was tendered as Exhibit “6”
(iv) GH¢100,000 on 2nd July 2015 evidenced by a counter cheque numbered 045464 form, a copy was tendered as Exhibit “7”
(v) GH¢200,000 on 3rd July 2015 evidenced by a counter cheque numbered 045465, a copy was tendered as Exhibit “8”
(vi) GH¢200,000 on 3rd July 2015 evidenced by a cash debit form, a copy was tendered at trial as Exhibit “9” and
(vii) GH¢78,000 on 3rd July 2015 evidenced by a cash debit form, a copy of which was tendered as Exhibit “10”.
The further evidence of the Defendant’s witness was that; in the Statement of Defence filed on behalf of the Defendant on 3rd November 2015, the last three dates in the above list of payments were wrongly stated as 2nd July 2015 instead of 3rd July 2015. Also he said the date, 3rd July 2015 in paragraph 8 of the Defendant’s Statement of Defence should have read 9th July 2015.
vi. Further, according to Mr. Lawoe on 9th July 2015, at the Plaintiff’s request, a transfer of the equivalent of €50,000 (in an amount totalling GH¢220,000) was made in respect of his Euro Account to his Cedi Account; but same was withdrawn by the Plaintiff from his Cedi Account in the following instalments on the same day:
(i) GH¢100,000 evidenced by a counter cheque numbered 045476, a copy of which was tendered and marked as Exhibit “11”
(ii) GH¢50,000 evidence by a cash debit form, a copy of which is also tendered and same was marked as Exhibit “12” and
(iii) GH¢70,000 evidenced by a cash debit form, a copy of which was tendered and marked as Exhibit “13”.
The witness further stated that;
vii. “Altogether, the amounts withdrew by the Plaintiff between 16th June and 9th July 2015 totalled GH¢932,200”. According to the witness the payments were made to the Plaintiff because the Bank had credited to his account the counterfeit Euro currency notes deposited by him in the mistaken belief that they were genuine Euro currency notes.
viii. Following the deposit by the Plaintiff of the second batch of euro notes in €500 denominations totalling €276,500, according to the Defendant’s witness samples were sent to the Bank of Ghana for verification and the samples were declared by them to be counterfeit. Thereafter it is the case of the Defendant’s Bank that;
ix. A report was made to the BNI on 15th July 2015 and the total amount of 500 Euro notes deposited by the Plaintiff on both occasions was submitted to them on 31st July 2015 for verification and investigation. A copy of the letter from the Bank in relation to the submission of the notes to the BNI was tendered and marked as Exhibit “14”. According to Mr. Lawoe the bank was subsequently informed by the BNI that the notes were sent to the Bank of Ghana which came to the conclusion that they were not genuine.
x. Mr. Lawoe further told the Court that on 17th July 2015, as part of their investigations into the case, the BNI arrested the Plaintiff and thereafter the Bank was informed that the BNI have completed their investigations on the matter and submitted their findings to the Attorney-General’s Office for action.
 The Defendant Bank’s witness further evidence to the Court as captured in the Supplementary Witness Statement filed on April 10, 2017 was that:
a. It is the Defendant’s belief that the Plaintiff was assisted in his deposit of the said counterfeit currency at the Bank’s Abossey Okai Branch to defraud the Bank by some former employees who were later dismissed by the Bank in October 2015. Mr. Lawoe said the most significant person was the teller, one Jonny Ayakwah Jnr who received the notes on both occasions.
b. According to the witness against the Defendant’s established procedures, Jonny Ayakwah failed to use the Ultra Violet Light (UV Light) provided by the Bank to check the genuineness of the €199,000 that the Plaintiff deposited on 16th June, 2015. Mr. Lawoe further said Johnny Ayakwah confirmed the allegation when together with the current Head of Internal Audit, one Mr. Joseph Laryea Ashong they reviewed the Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) footage covering occurrences as part of an audit investigation carried out into the matter in August 2015.
c. He said when they confronted him, he admitted that he did not in fact use the UV Light as he had previously claimed. The witness said the use of the UV Light is an additional check for foreign currency in case the money counting machines are unable to pick up any counterfeits. That notwithstanding, it is the case of the Defendant’s that the teller wrapped the notes with the requisite paper wrappers (used by banks) in 100 pieces each as he was supposed to do and stamped them with the Abossey Okai Branch stamp to indicate the branch at which they were received, the date, his teller number and signature which appeared on each packet. The remaining notes which did not add up to 100 pieces were also wrapped in the manner indicated above according Mr. Lawoe.
d. The notes were then stored in the branch vault located at the Abossey Okai Branch premises until they were evacuated to the Bank’s Central Vault at Ridge on 18th June, 2015. The witness tendered as Exhibit “15” what he said was the cash evacuation form covering the notes.
e. According to the witness the branch vault has notebooks (Branch Vault Register) in which they keep records of the currency deposited with it at various dates. He therefore tendered as Exhibit “16” an extract Mr. Lawoe said is “from the Branch Vault Register for euros received from November 2014 to December 2015 in which is recorded among other things the €500 euro notes received into the branch vault”. He also told the Court that the whole of the Branch Vault Register for euros is available for the Court’s inspection.
f. According to Mr. Lawoe as at the time the Plaintiff deposited the first tranche of €199,999 with the Abossey Okai Branch on 16th June 2015, there were no €500 euro denominations notes in the branch’s vault, where the notes were kept. This according to him can be seen from the said register tendered.
g. He also said the branch vault register shows that on 22nd May 2015, a snap check was done to reconcile the amounts recorded with the physical notes in the vault and that there were no euro notes in €500 euro denominations in the vault. According to him the position remained the same until the Plaintiff’s deposit on 16th June, 2015.
h. Further, according to Mr. Lawoe the notation “OUT (CV)” that appears in the Abossey Okai Branch Vault Register against the date 18th June 2015 indicates the date on which that deposit of euro notes was evacuated to the Bank’s Central Vault at Ridge. No further euro notes in €500 denominations came to the branch vault until the Plaintiff’s second deposit of €276,500 currency notes. Mr. Lawoe explained that in the various vault registers mentioned in this statement, the abbreviation “ABK” refers to the Abossey Okai Branch of the Bank and he continued that;
i. The Bank’s Central Vault to which the notes were sent also keeps a notebook (Central Vault Register) in which is recorded the foreign currencies brought from various branches. Evacuation of foreign currency to the Bank of Ghana is done on a date assigned to the Bank by the Bank of Ghana. Attached and marked Exhibit “17” is an extract from the Bank’s Central Vault Register for foreign currency which shows among other things €500 notes that were kept there between May 2015 and October 2015. The whole of the Central Vault Register for foreign exchange is also available for the Court’s inspection he said.
j. The notes from the Abossey Okai Branch with the identification wrappers stamped with the Abossey Okai Branch stamp and the information “I have stated above were kept at the Central Vault until 31st July, 2015 when the notes were delivered into the custody of the Bureau of National Investigation (BNI)”.
k. According to the witness the 2nd tranche of euro notes totalling €276,500 deposited by the Plaintiff on 14th July, 2015 were also in denominations of €500. Samples were sent to the Bank of Ghana on the same day they were brought and the Bank of Ghana indicated that they were counterfeit. Consequently, the €276,500 was not credited to the Plaintiff’s account the day it was deposited. To get the Plaintiff to come to the branch to assist in investigations, the amount was credited to his account on 15th July 2015. This entry was subsequently reversed on 16th July 2015.
l. Mr. Lowoe further said “Mr. Ayakwah, the teller on receipt of the notes wrapped them in 100 piece packets as is usually done and stamped them with the Abossey Okai Branch stamp and his teller number, date and other information I stated over. The remaining notes which did not add up to 100 pieces were also wrapped in the manner indicated above. This second set of notes was kept in the Abossey Okai Branch Vault and evacuated from there to the Bank’s Central Vault on 23rd July, 2015. These notes were delivered to the BNI from there on 31st July, 2015 together with the first set of notes which had not yet been evacuated to the Bank of Ghana. According to Mr. Lawoe Exhibit “18” is a copy of the cash evacuation form indicating evacuation of the second set of notes to the Bank’s Central Vault.
m. The Defendant’s witness told the Court that all the euro notes deposited by the Plaintiff on both 16th June and 14th July 2015 totalling €475,500 were checked by the Bank of Ghana and found to be counterfeit.
n. Further, according to Mr. Lawoe during the audit investigations, Jonny Ayakwah the teller
said that he detected that the €500 currency notes deposited by the Plaintiff on 14th July, 2015 were counterfeit that notwithstanding according to him Mr. Ayakwah said, he rejected only one note out of them and took the rest from the Plaintiff and credited the Plaintiff’s euro account with the total amount deposited. Based on that Mr. Lawoe said the Bank is of the firm belief that the only reasonable explanation as to why he did not reject all of them except one single note was because he was in collusion with the Plaintiff.
o. The further evidence of the Defendant’s witness is that the storage by the bank of cash, is done under tight security involving strong safes with secure locks. Evacuation is also done under tight security with bullion vans and armed police guards. Therefore, according to him the notes deposited by the Plaintiff based on all of the above are clearly the notes in respect of which the BNI investigations have been done and found to be counterfeit.
p. Again, according to Mr. Lawoe it is also the Defendant’s belief that the notes deposited with the Abossey Okai Branch by the Plaintiff were proceeds of an unlicensed business carried on by him together with others. To buttress the testimony the witness tendered as Exhibit Exhibit “19” a search report on Covenant Forex Bureau Limited which the Plaintiff and his two witnesses Jibrim Abubakari and Haruna Shaibu claim they are a part of, but in Mr. Lawoe’s opinion the exhibit does not support their claim.
 The witness concluded his evidence by stating that it is the Bank’s position that the Plaintiff is not entitled to keep the payments the Bank made to him in the mistaken belief that the currency deposited by him was genuine and also that he is not entitled to any further payments from the Bank.
 The Defendant Bank subpoenaed Ms. Adjoa Konadu Torto, a Manager with the Other Financial Institution Department (OFISD) of the Bank of Ghana. The essence of her testimony was that her department oversees the operations of financial institutions such as Forex Bureaus. She confirmed that Covenant Forex Bureau Limited is licensed by the Bank of Ghana and they file returns to the Central Bank. She testified that from their records the Covenant Forex Bureau traded in Euros in June and July 2015 and the records show that they recorded a purchase of 45 Euros and made no sale in June 2015 and bought 3, 170 Euros and sold 3,200 Euros in July 2015. The monthly returns to the Bank of Ghana for June and July 2015 were tendered and marked as Exhibit CE1 to CE5. Ms. Torto was cross-examined by Counsel and was discharged.
 The Defendant Bank further subpoenaed Detective Sergeant Kessie Akrasi who works with the BNI, as a witness. His testimony confirmed issues dealing with how the BNI received the complaint from the Defendant bank, the arrests of the Plaintiff and Jibrim Abubakar and the BNI’s conclusion that the notes they received from the HFC Bank on July 31, 2015 were counterfeit. According to him they came to that conclusion because “the investigation extended to the BOG and the European Central Bank (ECB) in Germany” and they came to the conclusion that the notes were fake or counterfeit. He tendered the report from the ECB dated 7th April 2017 and same was tendered as Exhibit CE6 and CE 6 series, marked from 1 to 33 in the record.
 The witness was cross-examined by Counsel and he admitted under cross-examination that in the course of the investigation the Bank of Ghana (BOG) did not state whether the money was fake but they were doubting and so they asked the BNI to move on for further action. According to him the further action made the BNI go to the ECB in Frankfurt, Germany. Under cross-examination Sergeant Akrasi tendered Exhibits CE7 to CE10 being the statements taken by the BNI from the Plaintiff and Jibril Abukakar. Mr. Adawudu cross-examined the witness on other issues and he was thereafter discharged and the Defendant closed its case. In a nutshell, this is the evidence before the court. I note that I have provided detailed evidence proffered by the parties to the Court because this is a facts-driven case.
v. The Court’s Opinion & Analysis:
 Before considering the main questions in this litigation, I turn now to the arguments made by the Counsel for the parties.
 The Plaintiff’s principal argument is that I must accept the testimony of the Plaintiff and his witnesses because the Plaintiff’s money was received by a lawful agent of the Defendant who cross-checked the money and then issued a receipt/deposit slips to confirm same. According to learned counsel the lawful agent or representative will not have issued the receipts to confirm the money from the Plaintiff if he had any cause to suspect fraud on the part of the Plaintiff. According to Mr. Adawudu the Defendant Bank’s witness himself accepts that it is the responsibility of the Bank and not the Customer, in this case the Plaintiff to ensure that the Bank machines are not faulty and therefore the Bank cannot hold he Plaintiff culpable. In Counsel’s view the Plaintiff has discharged his burden on the balance of probabilities that the monies he deposited were genuine and not fake.
 The Plaintiff’s alternative argument is that the Defendant’s story that the notes deposited by the Plaintiff were fake is riddled with falsehood. Firstly, Counsel submits that it was the Defendant’s work men acting alone and not any other neutral third party who determined that the monies deposited were fake after they had checked same and found them to be genuine earlier. Also, according to learned Counsel it is interesting to observe that the Defendant’s witness said that sample of the monies deposited was sent to the BOG the same day, that is July 14, 2015 but no evidence was proffered to support the contention. According to learned Counsel the only evidence that samples were sent to the BOG is Exhibit CE11 which is dated August 20, 2015 and even so the exhibit does not identify the type of currency either as Euro or Cedi.
 It is also the submission of learned Counsel that Exhibit CE11 was based on a letter from the BNI and not the Defendant Bank. Counsel further submitted that Exhibit 14 which is the submission of bad notes by the Defendant to the BNI is dated July 31, 2015 at which time the Plaintiff had already been arrested and granted bail. To learned Counsel therefore the question is at what “point and time was the sample taken to the BOG for examination on July 14, 2015 and brought back for the Defendant that the monies deposited by the Plaintiff was not genuine?” According to Mr. Adawudu the Plaintiff’s theory in this case is that the Defendant and the arresting officers crafted a grand design to defraud the Plaintiff by arresting him with the aim of eventually swapping the genuine monies he deposited with the counterfeit Euro currency.
 On the issue of the Plaintiff operating an unlicensed forex bureau and therefore operating an illegal business counsel submitted that the Defendant’s position is without any basis because the evidence per the Mr. Haruna Shaibu was that the forex bureau is part of the family business and he attached the License issued from the BOG as Exhibit “E” to support the testimony. Counsel further referred to the subpoenaed witness from the BOG who confirmed that Covenant Forex Bureau is registered and files returns with the BOG.
 To learned Counsel, the statements or contentions that Covenant Forex Bureau has incomplete or inaccurate business records can only attract sanctions from the regulator being the BOG and not the Defendant. In the opinion of Mr. Adawudu incomplete records do not in any way mean that the monies deposited were fake. Counsel also submitted that the said monies did not reflect in the records because it is that business which is the subject matter of this litigation. Counsel further submitted that the Defendant’s decision to close the Plaintiff’s account was unlawful and without any basis especially when the matter was in Court. To this extent, Counsel submitted that the Bank breached its own agreement with the Plaintiff. Taking all of the evidence into consideration and other arguments advanced, Mr. Adawudu implored the Court to grant the Plaintiff’s reliefs endorsed on the writ of summons and dismiss the Defendant’s Counterclaim.
 The Defendant challenges the Plaintiff’s claim mainly on the grounds that “the monies deposited by the Plaintiff were proceeds of unlicensed money exchange business and therefore illegal. Ms. Tsikata in her submission posited that the monies deposited by the Plaintiff were proceeds of an unlicensed money exchange business contrary to the Foreign Exchange Act, 2006 (Act 723) and therefore the business is illegal and consequently the Plaintiff cannot call on this Court to aid him recover the proceeds from the Defendant particularly when the said “monies” are also counterfeit. Learned Counsel anchored her arguments on the fact that the Plaintiff testified that he and Abubakar Jibrim are assistants and his uncle Haruna Shaibu is the overall boss of Covenant Forex Bureau but admitted under cross-examination that they were neither employees, directors or shareholders of the Forex Bureau.
 According to Ms. Tsikata that evidence that the Plaintiff and Abubakar Jibrim are assistants at the Forex Bureau and Mr. Haruna Shaibu is the overall boss was demonstrably false because Exhibit 19, the search report dated 31 May 2016 issued from the Registrar of Companies confirm that they are not officers or owners. Counsel also posited that the evidence of Ms. Torto of the BOG confirmed same. Ms. Tsikata submitted that Exhibit 19 shows who the directors are and also who the sole shareholder is. According to learned Counsel the evidence shows that the Plaintiff and Abubakar Jibrils’s name do not appear as employees of the Covenant Forex Bureau and this Counsel says is significant because forex bureaus are legally required to disclose their staff to the BOG.
 It is also the case of Counsel that if indeed the monies deposited belonged to the Covenant Forex Bureau then its directors would no doubt have instituted the present action and they would not have required the assistance of the Plaintiff. Ms. Tsikata further submitted that the Plaintiff and his witnesses are claiming links with the forex bureau because they want to “render legitimate the “monies” deposited by the Plaintiff with the Defendant Bank and obtain value for them”.
 The further submission of Counsel was that a cursory look at the proceedings show that there are inconsistencies in the pleadings and evidence called in support of the Plaintiff’s case such that it raises serious doubt about the veracity of the claim. Counsel says “there is overwhelming evidence before the Court that leads inexorably to the conclusion that the Plaintiff and PW1 were in fact operating an unlicensed money exchange business unrelated to Covenant Forex Bureau. To support the submission learned Counsel refereed to some of the depositions of the Plaintiff in support of his unsuccessful summary judgment application when he deposed that the money was “his money” and therefore the Defendant’s failure to hand over the money is causing him untold hardship and his evidence at trial that the money are proceeds from the family business which includes Covenant Forex Bureau etcetera.
 Counsel also referred to Exhibits CE7 to CE10, being the statements given to the BNI by the Plaintiff and PW1 and their claim that the “monies” deposited with the Bank are proceeds of Covenant Forex Bureau even less credible. Counsel also referred to where the Plaintiff told the BNI he works as Cost Delight Enterprise, a Construction Company and his evidence that he works for the Covenant Forex Bureau at trial. According to Learned Counsel the BNI statements constitute prior inconsistent statements by the Plaintiff and PWI and same go to their credibility of the evidence before the Court. Counsel relied on the case of ASIA v. AYEDUDOR & ANOTHER [1987-88] I GLR 175 AT 178-179 where the court stated:
“For the law is that a witness whose evidence on oath is contradictory of a previous statement made by him, whether sworn or unsworn, is not worthy of credit and his evidence cannot be regarded as being of any importance in the light of his previous contradictory statement unless he is able to give a reasonable explanation for the contradiction”.
 Learned Counsel cited such other cases as YARO & ANOTHER v. THE REPUBLIC  GLR 10 and POKU v. THE STATE  GLR 262 and submitted that neither the Plaintiff nor PW1 had any explanation, facile or otherwise to give this Court when cross-examined about their BNI statements and therefore they are not credible as to the source of the money deposited. Counsel further submitted that if indeed the proceeds of the transaction was from the Covenant Forex Bureau they would not have had any difficulty providing basic information about the bureau and its officers and shareholder. Learned Counsel referred to parts of the proceedings and submitted that the source of the “monies” deposited by the Plaintiff was as a result of illegality.
 Learned Counsel then submitted that having established that the “monies” were proceeds of an illegal money exchange business this Court should not aid the Plaintiff to recover same from the Defendant. Counsel referred to Chitty on Contract, General
Principles, Vol 1, 2nd Edition paragraph 1036 to 1041 and ADDY v. IRANI  2 GLR 30 and SCHANDORF v. ZEINI & ANOTHER  2 GLR 418 and submitted that the Plaintiff’s claim should fail.
 Ms. Tsikata also submitted that the euro notes deposited by the Plaintiff at the Defendant’s Abbosey Okai branch were counterfeit and therefore he is not entitled to claim its value against the Defendant. Rather, Counsel submitted that it is the Defendant which is entitled to recover GH¢932,200 from him because the Defendant paid same out “in the mistaken belief that the euro notes deposited by him were genuine”. Counsel further submitted that Exhibit 1 placed a burden on the Plaintiff as a depositor to ensure that monies deposited are genuine. In this case it is counsel’s submission that the report from the ECB shows that the monies submitted were counterfeit,
 Learned Counsel urged on the Court to disregard the suggestion of Plaintiff’s Counsel that the monies deposited were swapped. Counsel submitted the submission is not anchored in the evidence but speculative and falls short of the standard as required in the good old case of MAJOLAGBE v LARBI (1959) GLR 190 as well as the ECB’s statement that following analysis, all 951 banknotes were found to be specific type of counterfeit known to the ECB in May 2015. Also, according Learned Counsel the Defendant’s witness was able “to trace those €500 notes from the Abossey Okai branch vault where they kept the money after receipt on 16 June 2015 and 14 July 2015 to their handover to the BNI on 31 July 2015 under the cover of Exhibit 14, the letter from the Defendant’s employee Mabel Jenkins.
 Counsel referred to Exhibits 17 and 18 as documents which confirm the entries. To learned Counsel the description of how the money was received and transported as given by Mr. Lawoe is so water-tight that it is unlikely that notes from the Plaintiff could have been swapped or exchanged with counterfeit notes. Based on the above submissions and the Defendant’s witness statement that samples were sent to the BOG which confirmed that the notes were counterfeit and other submissions made in the written submission filed learned Counsel prayed the Court to dismiss the Plaintiff’s claim and grant the Defendant’s Counterclaim.
 I proceed to evaluate the nature of the evidence adduced at the trial. I shall examine firstly the burden of the parties in this suit and relate same to the facts presented in their respective pleadings and the evidence adduced at the trial, before I make the necessary findings while determining the factual and legal issues set down. The general position of the law on proof is aptly stated by Kpegah J. A. (as he then was) in the case of ZABRAMA VRS. SEGBEDZI (1991) 2 GLR 221 at 246 as follows:
“…a person who makes an averment or assertion, which is denied by his opponent, has a burden to establish that his averment or assertion is true. And he does not discharge this burden unless he leads admissible and credible evidence from which the fact or facts he asserts can properly and safely be inferred. The nature of each averment or assertion determines the degree and nature of the burden”.
 Now, by sections 11(4) and 12 of the Evidence Act 1975 (NRCD 323) the standard of proof in all civil cases is one on “a balance of probabilities”. The judicial approval to sections 11 and 12 of the Evidence Act has been stated by the Supreme Court in the case of ADWUBENG VRS. DOMFEH (1996 – 97) SCGLR 660 at page 662 where the court stated that:
“By SS 11(4) and 12 of the Evidence Act 1975 NRCD 323 the standard of proof in all civil cases is proof by the preponderance of probabilities no exceptions were made”.
 This general position on the burden of proof and of persuasion was also judicial approved by the Supreme Court in the case of ABABIO VRS. AKWASI IV [1994 – 1995] GBR 774 where Aikins JSC expounded the position as follows:
“The general principle of law is that it is the duty of a Plaintiff to prove what he alleges. In other words, it is the party who raises in his pleadings an issue essential to the success of his case who assumes the burden of proving it. The burden only shifts to the defence to lead sufficient evidence to tip the scales in his favour when on a particular issue, the Plaintiff leads some evidence to prove his claim. If the Defendant succeeds in doing this he wins, if not, he loses on that particular issue”.
See also the case of RE: ASHALLEY BOTWE LANDS, ADJETEY AGBOSU & OTHERS v. KOTEY & OTHERS [2003-2004] SCGLR 420 where the apex Court held per Wood JSC (as she then was) at page 444 that:
“It is trite learning that by the statutory provisions of the Evidence Decree, 1975 (NRCD 323) the burden of producing evidence in any given case is not fixed, but shifts from a party to party at various stages of the trial, depending on the issues asserted and or denied.”
 In my examination of the evidence adduced by the Plaintiff and Defendant in the instant suit, both the Plaintiff and Defendant have an obligation to adduce sufficient evidence in support of their respective claims and same would be measured, weighed in the same degree and extent which any litigant in a civil trial is obligated to adduce in order that upon a proper balance the logical inferences and findings would be arrived at relevant to support the conclusions. I note that in the context of the instant suit both the Plaintiff and the Defendant (Counterclaimant) carry the burden of proof and of persuasion which is to be determined on the preponderance of probabilities as defined by Section 12(2) of the Evidence Act 1975 (NRCD 325).
 The Supreme Court has further explained in the case of OKUDZETO ABLAKWA (No. 2) vs. ATTORNEY GENERAL & ANOTHER  2 SCGLR 845 at 867 in regards to the burden of proof that;
“If a person goes to court to make an allegation, the onus is on him to lead evidence to prove that allegation, unless the allegation is admitted. If he fails to do that, the ruling on that allegation will go against him. Stated more explicitly, a party cannot win a case in court if the case is based on an allegation which he fails to prove or establish. This rule is further buttressed by section 17 (b) which, emphasizes on the party on whom lies the duty to start leading evidence…”
See also the old case of BANK OF WEST AFRICA v. ACKUN  1 GLR 176.
Findings of Fact & Evaluation of Evidence:
 Having laid out the essential arguments traded by Counsel. I start my analysis by making the following findings of fact based on the pleadings filed by the parties after hearing the testimony of the witnesses at trial, the exhibits filed and also having read the written submissions filed by counsel. I now make the following findings of fact having subjected all the evidence on record to critical evaluation and analysis. It is my finding that:
i) The Plaintiff on June 16, 2015 attended at the Abossey Okai branch of the Defendant’s Bank and deposited an amount of €195,000.00 into his account with the bank. I also find that the said money was received by a Teller being a representative of the Bank who verified same and thereafter credited the Plaintiff’s account. A deposit slip was issued to the Plaintiff to confirm the deposit. I also find as a fact that the Plaintiff subsequently made withdrawals from the deposits made.
ii) I further find as a fact that the Plaintiff on July 14, 2015 attended at the Abossey Okai branch of the Defendant’s bank to make a deposit into his account with the branch. I note that the Plaintiff intended to deposit a total amount of €177,000 but upon receipt by an officer of the bank, that is a Teller who verified the amount, a single €500 note was found to be counterfeit and therefore rejected. Consequently, a total deposit of €176,500 was credited to the Plaintiff’s account. A deposit slip was issued out to him to confirm the deposit.
iii) The Plaintiff was invited to the branch of the Defendant Bank about three days after the July 14, 2015 deposit and was arrested by the BNI who interrogated him together with PW1, Abubakar Jibrim and they both provided statements to the BNI. I also find that following the arrest the Plaintiff and PW1 were granted bail but they have not been charged as of now with any offence by any institution of the state.
iv) I also find as a fact that contrary to the evidence of the Defendant’s witness there is no evidence before the Court that the Plaintiff colluded and or had any arrangement with the Defendant Bank’s staff to help him defraud and/or cheat the bank when he made the deposits referred to above. The allegation that the Plaintiff “had help from inside the bank” was a ball thrown into the air but it remained there after the trial. The Defendant failed to prove the allegation with any cogent evidence.
v) I also find as a fact that following the deposit the Plaintiff was not contacted by either the Defendant Bank, the BOG or any institution for his input/comment before the notes he deposited were declared to be counterfeit by the Defendant Bank.
vi) I also find as a fact that there is no evidence before the Court that prior to July 31, 2015 samples of Euro notes were sent to the BOG which confirmed that the notes were fake and/or Counterfeit. In the opinion of the Court, based on the evidence, the only analytical report which speak to the counterfeit of Euro notes is the one dated 7th April 2017, Exhibit CE6 from the ECB written almost two years after the Plaintiff made the deposit.
vii) Finally, I find as a fact that the Plaintiff is not an officer, director or employee of the Covenant Forex Bureau which is licensed by the Bank of Ghana.
 I now proceed to consider the issues as I have stated above and I shall combine both issues 1 and 2 which is:
“Whether or not the monies deposited with the Defendant Bank were checked and received by the Defendant and same credited to the Plaintiff’s account on June 16, 2015 and July 14, 2015.
First and foremost, I do agree entirely with learned Counsel for the Plaintiff on his position of the law so stated in ABABIO v AKWASI III SUPRA that a party whose pleadings raise an issue essential to the success of the case assumes the burden of proving such an issue and that the burden sometimes shifts depending on the particular issues so central to the success or otherwise of the case. In the opinion of this court, the Plaintiff in the instant case has discharged that burden of producing cogent and probative evidence to establish that the monies he deposited were checked and accepted by the Defendant’s employees and found to be genuine.
 To my mind, based on the findings of fact made above, the irresistible conclusion is that the issues ought to be resolved in favour of the Plaintiff. There is no denying the fact that the monies were received by a Teller as an agent of the Bank who checked same and thereafter credited the Plaintiff’s account. The issuing of the deposit slip clearly confirms the transaction and I have no reason to conclude otherwise in the absence of any contrary evidence that the Teller who received the money did not check and verify same.
 In fact, the Defendant does not deny that its Teller received the money, checked same and credited the Plaintiff’s account. The complaint of the Defendant is that the Teller failed to comply with a rule of the bank by not turning on a certain UV light. In RE: ASERE STOOL AFFAIRS (2005-2006) SCGLR 637 the law was stated that where an adversary has admitted a fact advantageous to the cause of a party, the party does not need any better evidence to establish that fact than by relying on such admission, which is an example of estoppel by conduct.
 As stated above, I note that whilst the Defendant does not deny the receipt of the monies by its Teller, the centerpiece of the Defendant’s case is that its employee, being the Teller who received the notes, failed to use the UV light which could have detected that the currency notes submitted were fake and therefore this Court ought to accept the explanation and rule that the deposits were indeed counterfeit. The court’s simple response is that it has no basis to come to such a conclusion. This Plaintiff cannot be made to suffer for the negligence of the Defendant’s staff in the absence of evidence of collusion with the said staff. Without evidence of collusion, the Defendant leaves the court with mere conjecture and that is inadequate to support its position. Common sense and human experience dictate that at the point of receipt a diligent Teller working for the Defendant who is trained should detect fake currency using modern technology such as counting machines. Not having done so, to my mind it lies ill in the mouth of the Defendant to say the Court ought to accept its version as the truth. Why is it not possible that some crooks within the bank are the ones who replaced the genuine notes with fake ones?
 Further, I note that the Defendant’s witness Mr. Lawoe with all the boldness testified that the said Teller one Mr. Johnny Ayakwah admitted that he basically accepted the counterfeit money even though he saw same. The nagging question from the Court which was not answered by the Defendant is why was the said Mr. Ayakwah (who clearly is the star witness) not called to tell this Court his damning confession for him to be cross-examined by the Plaintiff? Also, in the opinion of the Court, no explanation is given as to why the said Mr. Ayakwah chose to work against the interest of his employer, the Bank in favour of the Plaintiff as a customer when no collusion is established and proven. Furthermore, why was the CCTV footage which the witness. Mr. Lawoe says he watched with Mr. Laryea Ashong after which Mr. Ayakwah and others were dismissed not made available at trial? Based on the evidence this Court has no problem in dismissing that hearsay evidence of Mr. Lawoe because it is self-serving and indeed without basis. Consequently based on the above analysis I hereby resolve the first two issues raised in favour of the Plaintiff.
 I now turn my attention to the how the Defendant’s came to the conclusion that the currency deposited were counterfeit. Again, having evaluated and assessed the evidence it is difficult to appreciate and accept the reasons as to how the Defendant came to the conclusion that the Plaintiff’s notes were counterfeit. First of all, there is no evidence that the serial numbers of the notes deposited were recorded and also whether or not the Plaintiff was the only person who made deposits of Euro notes at the Abbosey Okai branch of the Defendant Bank on June 16, 2015 and July 14, 2015. I note that despite the efforts by both the witness and Counsel who have touted how diligent the process of the bank is in handling the money received and how it got to the Central vault of the bank at Ridge I am not persuaded. Their reliance on Exhibits 16 and 17 to make its case respectfully does not convince me.
 To my mind, the said exhibits are much ado about nothing because it is not the best evidence based on banking practice to support such a serious allegation made against the Plaintiff. To my mind the failure of the Defendant to submit the Abbosey Okai branch’s end of day report sent to the headquarters undermines the integrity of Exhibits 16 and 17. It is trite knowledge that Banks prepare end of day reports which show the activities for the day including deposits and withdrawals made. In my respectful opinion the absence of such a cogent evidence to substantiate that only Mr. Shaibu Amadu deposited Euro notes in five hundred denominations at the branch on the dates in contention I am not persuaded by that argument put forth by the defence.
 With the greatest respect to the Defendant, Exhibit 16 and 17 are self-serving documents prepared for purposes of litigation and anybody at all can compile same at any time because there is no evidence as to when the sheets covered with the foolscap note book were compiled and at what time. I therefore reject same and place no weight on the said evidence. I am of the opinion that the allegation made against the Plaintiff and attaching him to the said Counterfeit notes is clearly very speculative and based on conjecture because to my mind the link between him and the said notes is non-existent and/or at best very weak. I must also add that if the BNI with all the apparatus of the state behind it after its investigation has not charged the Plaintiff, it will be without any legal basis for this Court to hold that the monies deposited are counterfeit and in effect confirm what an investigation has not established yet. The lack of charge by the Attorney General clearly informs me that there is no air of reality to the allegations against the Plaintiff. I am not prepared to accept the Defendant bank’s version of the story over the Plaintiff just because it is a bank.
 As indicated above, there is no evidence that samples of the notes were sent to the BOG for testing prior to the arrest of the Plaintiff. From the evidence the notes remained with the Defendant bank until July 31, 2015 at the time the Plaintiff had already been arrested, interrogated and granted bail. Sadly, the BNI as a state institution arrested a citizen of the Republic, interrogated and detained him before receiving the so-called basis for the arrest. It is clearly the wrong way to conduct an investigation and same ought not be countenanced because what happened in this case create negative optics that undermine the public trust in the BNI as an investigative agency. Also contrary to the evidence of Mr. Lawoe the BOG did not come to any conclusion that the notes were counterfeit before the report to the BNI and the arrest of the Plaintiff. Sergeant Akrasi confirmed this when he was examined by the Defendant’s own counsel. On November 14, 2017 Ms. Tsikata asked the witness that question and he answered as follows:
“Q: The BOG, did they come to any conclusion about the notes as to whether they were genuine or fake?
A: BOG did not state whether it was fake or not but they were doubting and so they asked us to move on for further action.”
From the evidence the moving on for further action was what took the BNI to the ECB in Frankfurt, Germany. I also note that no witness was called from the Bank of Ghana to corroborate that evidence given under oath by Mr. Lawoe. There is no evidence as to when the samples were sent to the BOG, who received it at the BOG and who examined it at the BOG. Absolutely no evidence. It therefore means the Defendant came to the conclusion that the notes were fake without any proof.
 Learned Counsel for the Defendant has built her case on the fact that the source of the monies deposited are from unlicensed business and therefore this Court should not aid the Plaintiff to recover same. But is this case about the source of the money or the fact that the Defendant says the deposited amounts were counterfeit? Counsel relies on the Foreign Exchange Act to say the Plaintiff carried out an illegal business and therefore the source of the money was illegal. To my mind the Defendant is with respect trying to change the subject matter contrary to its position and clearly depart from its pleadings. In fact the Defendant as a Commercial Bank is not the regulator of Forex Bureaus but the BOG which has the mandate to regulate and impose sanctions if any on anybody trading as a forex bureau without a license. Also, I have looked at the Foreign Exchange Act and I have found no evidence to support the contention that failure to comply with the Act makes monies obtained illegal and therefore unrecoverable. Sections 29 and 30 of the Law, Foreign Exchange Act, 2006, Act 723 on offences and general penalty do not support the contention of Counsel. I therefore reject same.
 Further, I also reject the illegal source argument of the Defendant for the following reasons. First of all I am not convinced that the Defendant met its onus that the monies deposited by the Plaintiff are the exact notes declared by the ECB to be counterfeit. Secondly, having listened to the Plaintiff and his witnesses in particular Mr. Haruna Shaibu, I have no reason to disbelieve him that his businesses which include the buying of cattle from Burkina Faso and other places, cannot yield the monies deposited through the Plaintiff at the Defendant bank. I thus prefer the story of the Plaintiff as to the source of the monies deposited and I do hold that the Defendant’s argument that because the Plaintiff operated an unlicensed money business the source of the deposits made was illegal is dismissed.
 Learned Counsel for the Defendant also submitted that the Plaintiff was not credible due to inconsistent statements made. I note that the case of ANKRAH v ANKRAH (1966) GLR 60 supports the contention and therefore Counsel’s submission is based on the law. It however important to note that even though the rule established in ANKRAH v ANKRAH (SUPRA) is good law it is only to the extent there were serious variations in the evidence of the party in relation to his pleadings.
 As a general rule, a witness whose evidence on oath is contradictory of a previous statement made by him whether sworn or not is not worthy of credit and his evidence is not worthy of any importance in the light of his previous contradictory statement unless he is able to give a reasonable explanation for the contradictions. I need to stress, however, that that rule is contingent upon giving such a witness the platform to explain the inconsistencies. It is provided in S.76 of the Evidence Act, 1975 (NRCD 323) thus:
“76. Unless the Court otherwise determines, extrinsic evidence of a statement made by a witness inconsistent with a part of the testimony of the witness at the trial shall be excluded unless,
a) the witness was so examined while testifying as to give the witness an opportunity to explain or to deny the statement; or
b) the witness has not been excused from giving further testimony.”
 In the instant case whilst the Defendant’s Counsel did ask the Plaintiff questions in regards to his BNI statement he was not confronted with any inconsistency between his evidence and that statement at all. He was also not asked questions about his depositions in the affidavit filed in support of his failed summary judgment application and his evidence at trial contrary to the references to the said inconsistencies as stated in Counsel’s written submission. In fact the Plaintiff was not offered the opportunity under cross-examination to explain the said inconsistencies at all. In any case how important are the said inconsistencies to the resolution of the main issues in this case? As a matter of law, not every minor conflict or inconsistency in the evidence of a party and a previous statement made by him would qualify to label him as an untruthful witness. I do think that such inconsistency must of necessity, be of grave and material in nature capable of turning the result of the case one way or the other. In support of this contention I rely on APALOO v R (1975) 1GLR 156 at 173. See also: ODAMETEY v CLOCUH (1989-90) GLRD 1 SC. In the instant case I do not think that there were any serious issues in regards to the alleged inconsistencies in the case of the Plaintiff to engage the attention of the court to disbelieve his in Court testimony given under oath at trial on the core issue before the Court.
Conclusion & Disposition:
 I think I have ably demonstrated that the Plaintiff is entitled to recover the money he deposited with the Defendant’s bank. In the final analysis I hold that, on the balance of probabilities, the Plaintiff has proved his claim to the satisfaction of the court and is entitled to judgment. I therefore ENTER JUDGMENT for the Plaintiff for his claims as endorsed on the writ of summons and I hereby DISMISS the Defendant’s Counterclaim.
 The Plaintiff is also entitled to interest on the money deposited at the prevailing bank rate from July 14, 2015 till date of final payment. See the case of HOLLAND WEST
AFRICA AND ANOTHER v. PAN AFRICAN TRADING CO. AND ANOTHER  2 GLR 179-184 where Edusei J (as he then was) held at Holding 3 that:
“If a breach of contract by a Defendant had deprived a Plaintiff of the use of a sum of money or other capital asset, the defendant must be presumed to have agreed to pay interest for the period between the date when the cause of action arose and the date of the judgment”.
See also the Supreme Court case of ROYAL DUTCH AIRLINES (KLM) v. FARMEX LTD [1989-90] 2GLR 623, SC holding 5.
 In respect of damages, I shall refer to the principle as established by the Supreme Court in the ROYAL DUTCH AIRLINES (KLM) v. FARMEX LTD SUPRA where the Court’s opinion is stated at Holding 4 as follows:
“On the measure of damages for breach of contract, the principle adopted by the courts was restitutio in integrum, that is; if the Plaintiff has suffered damage not too remote he must, as far as money could do it, be restored to the position he would have been in had that particular damage not occurred. What was required to put the Plaintiffs in the position they would have been in was sufficient money to compensate them for what they had lost”.
 In this case I hold that the Plaintiff is entitled to damages for breach of contract because for almost three years the Plaintiff has been denied the use of his money. It should be noted however that the damages must be assessed as compensation to the Plaintiff for the denial of the use of the money he deposited which he says is for the family business but not as a punishment of the Defendant. In the instant case I am of the respectful opinion that the Plaintiff should be adequately compensated. Based on the evidence therefore I shall award the Plaintiff damages of GH₵ 50, 000. The Plaintiff’s cost shall also assessed at GH₵ 25, 000.
 Before bringing the curtain down on my analysis, I wish to state that based on all of the evidence, I am of the respectful opinion that the Defendant as Commercial Bank has not done its public image any good. I am of the opinion that this litigation should have been avoided because the facts as presented in this case undoubtedly undermines public trust in a Commercial Bank such as the Defendant… But that is my opinion and I can only hope that in future should a similar situation arise, a different approach would be adopted.
 I wish to commend both Counsel for the civil manner the trial was conducted.