Per their Writ of Summons filed at the Registry of the High Court, Accra on the 25th March, 2013, and the accompanying statement of claim, the plaintiffs claim against the defendant bank is for; 
(a) An unqualified apology for the embarrassment caused to both the 1st & 2nd plaintiffs (b) Punitive and aggravated damages at Thirty Thousand Ghana Cedis (GH?30,000.00) in favour of each of the plaintiff for breach of confidentiality. (c) An Order of perpetual injunction restraining the Defendant, his agents, servants, assigns, representatives from further publishing the personal bank details of both the 1st and 2nd plaintiffs to the general public unlawfully. (d) Cost and (e) Any other relief (s) deemed fit by the Honourable Court. 
The records show that, upon the service of the Writ of Summons and the statement of claim on the Defendant’s Bank on the 3rd April, 2013, notice of appearance was filed on the 10th April, 2013.  This was followed by an eleven (11) paragraphed Statement of Defence on the 23rd April, 2013. 
 
2 
JUSTICE E. K. MENSAH, JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT   
  EWURABENA SACKEY & OR VS UNITED BANK FOR AFRICA 
Per the records and at the level of application for directions, the below issues were set down for trial on the 5th November, 2013. 
(1) Whether or not the Defendants owe the Plaintiff a duty to protect their confidential personal information contained in their document in the Defendant’s custody. (2) Whether the Defendant breached the said duty by exposing such information to a road side bread seller. (3) Whether the Plaintiffs did suffer any damage resulting from the alleged negligent act of the Defendant’s Bank. 
The case of the 1st plaintiff as told to the court on the 14th day of January, 2014, is that she does business between Britain and Ghana.  That she knows the 2nd Plaintiff very well as he is her brother and they both live in House Number. 39 Buleni inn, Accra.   That in the month of November, 2012, she had a call from a lady who asked whether she is a customer of the defendant’s bank and live in House Number. 39, Buleni inn Accra. 
It is her case that, she answered the questions in the affirmative and she then questioned the caller as to where she had the information from and she replied that she had them from a bread seller the plaintiff sold her paper or documents to.    That she then arranged and met the said girl at Osu, Accra in the company of two of her friends.    Further that on seeing her the informant/caller whether asked whether she is so broke to be selling her personal documents.  That when asked of the said caller whether had evidence on what she was telling her, the informant who happens to be from a bread seller confidently pulled out and handed over to her a document which turned out to be a form she filled out in her application form for a Visa Card from the Defendant’s Bank.   That the said form had on it her email address, date of birth, full name, house address, her telephone and accounts numbers and the maiden name of her mother and further that, it also contained her security information.   Witness tendered in evidence the said form and same was accepted as Exhibit ‘A’.  That she at a point relayed this information to the 2nd Plaintiff who advised her to report the incident to the Defendant which she did but was not attended to until the instant Writ was filed.   That the information on Exhibit ‘A’ is confidential because it has 
 
3 
JUSTICE E. K. MENSAH, JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT   
  EWURABENA SACKEY & OR VS UNITED BANK FOR AFRICA 
the security code to her account with the Defendant’s Bank, her full name, residential address, date of birth and her mother’s maiden name.    That there is also a security test question and a security answer thereto.    That she says the information contained in Exhibit ‘A’ is confidential because when she was opening the accounts with the Bank, they told her that should a third person or party sight the said Exhibit ‘A’ the Bank should be notified so that they would change the security code as at that date and that the security code has not been changed as at the day and date she was giving evidence in court. 
It is further the case of the 1st Plaintiff that, a few days thereafter she received another call from the informant or caller asking her whether she knows one Francis Sackey and that her answer was in the affirmative, adding that the said Francis Sackey is her brother.    That she personally took those documents from the girl who had them from the bread seller.   That when the 2nd Plaintiff was again told of what had happened, he rushed to the Defendant’s Bank with anger to find out why document filled at the bank should find their way to a bread seller.  The said documents containing the information about the 2nd Plaintiff was also tendered and accepted in evidence as Exhibit ‘B’.   
Further that on the 16th April, 2012, four (4) of the defendants managers including the Head of the Legal Department met with them in their lawyers’ Chambers and proposed to settle the matter out of court.   That they discussed the terms of settlement and the officers said they were going to get back to them on the 23rd April, 2013, but never heard from the Defendant Bank.   She therefore prayed for the reliefs as endorsed on the Writ of Summons. 
On the 7th day of April, 2014, the 2nd Plaintiff, Francis Herbert Sackey collaborated the evidence of his sister, Ewurabena Sackey to the effect of the circumstances that brought Exhibits ‘A’ and ‘B’ into their possession.    That he later came into contacts with one Felix Quaye the compliance manager of the Bank and narrated to him how their forms filled at the Bank got into the hands of a bread seller and later found their way into the possession of the Plaintiffs.    That the said Felix Quaye advised him to email his complaint 
 
4 
JUSTICE E. K. MENSAH, JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT   
  EWURABENA SACKEY & OR VS UNITED BANK FOR AFRICA 
to the Defendant’s Bank which he complied.   The said email correspondence was tendered and accepted in evidence as Exhibit ‘C.   That he also had the chance to meet Felix Quaye in the Company of four other managers of the bank whose names he mentioned as Benjamin Adjei Ahulu, Addey Dayor, Marcus and Ellen Muzu to whom he narrated the incident.   That nothing concrete came out of this meeting as the 1st Plaintiff had travelled out of the country and so they agreed to meet the third time which was convened later and this time with the Head of Legal Department, Nana Adwoa Hackman in attendance.    That at the third meeting, the Bank officials requested he returns the documents in issue so that they would change the PIN but this was not complied with as they had decided to institute legal action.    That the Bank officials at that meeting requested to settle the matter out of court if it was money they wanted.    
It is his case that, the matter was not settled out of court for which reason they are in court.   That the Visa Application Electronic Card is very confidential such that a third person or party can use them to enter into their accounts without any red flag been raised.  Further it is the 2nd plaintiff’s case that, they have suffered damage by the breach of the confidential agreement which of course is an embarrassment to them. 
On the 22nd June, 2015, Raymond Addae Acka Egbele, a Representatives of the Defendant Bank testified to the effect that, he is the Head of Electronic Supervising Division of the Bank; and that the plaintiffs are customers of the bank.   That the Plaintiffs are making a claim that the Electronic Visa Application Forms that they requested and filled out and deposited in the custody of the defendant were found in the possession of a bread seller and as result of which they alleged their confidential information has been made public; which according to the Plaintiffs’ has caused embarrassment to them and have brought the Bank to court to claim some compensation.   That when they officially heard the case of the Plaintiff, the defendant Bank suggested to the Plaintiffs that, they would assist them to change the details of the alleged forms in order to prevent any possible issue on financial compensation.     That the Bank further suggest to change their details including their PIN 
 
5 
JUSTICE E. K. MENSAH, JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT   
  EWURABENA SACKEY & OR VS UNITED BANK FOR AFRICA 
but the Plaintiffs declined.    Further that, Exhibits ‘A” and ‘B’ have the names, phone numbers and the accounts of the Plaintiffs.    
It is also the case of the Defendant per Representative that, the Plaintiffs were interested in financial compensation.  That the Defendant Bank does not see the said information as confidential and yet the Plaintiffs claim GH?30,000.00 each for allegedly exposing their information to the public.    That initially the Bank only asked them to assist it change their details but as the Plaintiff insisted on monetary compensation, the Bank met them to agree on a token sum in the range of GH?3,000.00 but this was turned down.    That all attempt to settle the matter out of court failed because of the Plaintiffs firm stand to take financial compensation of GH?30,000.00 each.   The Bank per witness deemed paragraphs 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 17 and 18 of the statement of claim of the Plaintiffs.     That the Bank does not know the 1st Plaintiff as an International Business Woman or as a Financial Consultant and so it has not injured the Plaintiffs in anyway, form, manner and has also not defamed any of the Plaintiffs’ in any form for which reason it is their view that, the Plaintiffs are not entitled to the reliefs as endorsed on the Writ of Summons. 
Now, and as by Law established, a person who makes a claim in any civil case owes it a duty to adduce sufficient and credible evidence to prove his/her case.     In fact Section 11 (4) and 12 of the Evidence Act 1975 (NRCD 323) states that, the standard of proof in all civil cases is one of “a balance of probabilities”.   This was stated and cited with approval by the Supreme Court in the case of ADWUBENG VRS DOMFEH [1996 – 97] SCGLR 660 at page 662 as follows; 
“By Section 11 (4) and 12 of the Evidence Act (NRCD 323) the standard of proof in all civil cases is proof by the preponderance of probabilities no exceptions were made” 
Again, In the case of TAKORADI FLOOR MILLS VRS SAMIR FARIS [2005- 2006] SCGLR 882 at page 900, the Supreme Court captured the trite position of the Law relating to the burden of proof.  They stated as follows:- 
 
6 
JUSTICE E. K. MENSAH, JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT   
  EWURABENA SACKEY & OR VS UNITED BANK FOR AFRICA 
          “To sum up this point, it is sufficient to state that, this being a civilian suit, the rules of                            evidence require that the Plaintiff produces sufficient evidence to make out his claim on a preponderance of probabilities, as defined in Section 12 (2) of the Evidence Decree 1975 NRCD 323).  Our understanding of the Rules in the Evidence Decree, 1975, on the burden of proof is that in assessing the balance of probabilities, all the evidence, be it that of the Plaintiff or the defendant, must be considered and the party in whose favour the balance tilts is the person whose case is more probable of the rival version and it deserving of a favourable verdict”.  
It is therefore my view that, the yardstick for determining who takes the day in this suit is the quality and credibility of the evidence the party adduces. 
At the close of the pleadings, three issues were set down for trial and the first is “whether or not the defendant owes the Plaintiffs a duty to protect their confidential personal information contained in their documents in the defendant’s custody.   Exhibits ‘A’ and ‘B’ are the VISA International Electronic Debit Card Application Form in respect of Miss Ewurabena Sackey and Mr. Francis H. Sackey respectively provided for filling by the UNITED BANK FOR AFRICA.  The two exhibits have the following information about the then applicants now the plaintiffs in the instant suit. 
1. Their full names 2. Home or residential address 3. Postal address 4. Both land and mobile telephone numbers 5. Accounts numbers 6. Test question and answer (under column of security information) 
On each of Exhibits ‘A’ and ‘B’ and immediately below the security information bar or block is an agreement between the UNITED BANK FOR AFRICA, the then applicants and the plaintiffs in the instant suit.   By the agreement the applicants and the plaintiffs herein have subjected themselves to the Defendant banks VISA Debit Card Terms and Conditions as stated therein.  The question before the court is, as contained in issue (1) 
 
7 
JUSTICE E. K. MENSAH, JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT   
  EWURABENA SACKEY & OR VS UNITED BANK FOR AFRICA 
stated above.  The Defendant’s Bank also by its business nature is to collect and keep the information about its customers secretly and confidentially so that should any red flag be raised in respect of any such information as in the instant case, those documents could be easily traced and referred to.      If also, for any other reason (s) the Defendant’s Bank decides to do any other business including the issuance of Exhibits ‘A’ and ‘B’ as in the instant suit, it equally owes it a duty to keep copies that remain with it secretly and confidentially to the benefit of the Depositor/Customer and the Bank.    In fact it is an implied term of contract between the Applicant/Customer (s) who for the purpose of this case are the Plaintiffs herein and the defendant Bank to secretly and confidentially keep their respective information in the Bank’s custody.    This contract is entered into between the suitors immediately the applicants who are the plaintiffs herein filled and deposited their personal information Forms with the bank official (s) in charge of such duties.    
Infact the Banking Act, 2004, (Act 673) and the Data Protection Act, 2012, (Act 843) establish the Defendant Bank’s duty to the Plaintiff.     Section 84 of Act 673 provides as follows and I quote: 
      “84 A director, an official or any other employee of a bank shall not disclose an information relating to the affairs of a customer with that Bank except where the disclosure of the information is by Law or a Court of competent jurisdiction or the Bank of Ghana or is authorized by the customer or is in the interest of that Bank”. 
In the instant suit even though the Defendant objected to the tendering in evidence of Exhibits ‘A’ and ‘B’ they did not deny the fact that, the said exhibits were the documents that were filled and deposited in the Bank’s custody for safe keeping by the Plaintiffs herein, and without any authorization from or by a Court, the Bank of Ghana or the customer (s), the Applicants/Plaintiffs personal information forms with the defendant found their way to a bread seller on the street of Accra. 
Again, section 17 (g) of the Data Protection Act 2012, (Act 843) provides as follows and I quote; 
 
8 
JUSTICE E. K. MENSAH, JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT   
  EWURABENA SACKEY & OR VS UNITED BANK FOR AFRICA 
  17 “A person who process date shall take into account the privacy of the individual by applying the         following principles;- 
(g) “Data security safeguards” 
In the instant suit, there is no dispute to the fact that Exhibits ‘A’ and ‘B’ were deposited with the Defendant’s Bank by the Plaintiff and yet they found their way to this court via a bread seller in or on the busy street of Accra.    The implication is that, the Defendant Bank either has no data security safeguards or neglected to apply them to the benefit of the Plaintiffs in the instant suit.    
It is therefore my view that, issue (1) above is resolve.   Issue two (2) is “whether the Defendant breached the said duty by exposing such information to a road side bread seller”?   The records and evidence before the court has it that Exhibits ‘A’ and ‘B’ were filled by the Plaintiffs and submitted to the Defendant for VISA Card.   The said Exhibits ‘A’ and ‘B’ are now with the court and no longer in the possession of the Defendant’s Bank.   The bare fact is that, the two exhibits found their ways into the hands of a bread seller on the street of Accra.    The meaning is that, the y have breached the Provisions of Section 84 of Act 673 of 2012 and Sections 17 (g) and 18 (a) of Act 843, the Banking Act and Data Provision Act respectively of 2012; for which reason they have breached their duty by exposing the information of the Plaintiffs to a bread seller.   Issue two is also resolved.    The third issue is “whether the Plaintiffs did suffer any damages resulting from the alleged negligent act of the defendant?   The Plaintiffs have stated in their respective evidence to the court the distress and anxiety that they went through in running after the officials of the Defendant Bank to report the incident to them.   They also mentioned the series of meetings that they had with the officials of the defendant Bank which yielded no positive result.   Time and money were spent on the meetings held and the filing of the instant suit.   The journey to and from court by the plaintiffs with the attendant payment of legal fees are all damages that the plaintiffs have suffered as a result of the defendant Bank negligent or wilful act by exposing their personal information to third parties who are not expected to have access to the information as contained in Exhibits ‘A’ and ‘B’. 
 
9 
JUSTICE E. K. MENSAH, JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT   
  EWURABENA SACKEY & OR VS UNITED BANK FOR AFRICA 
I am of the view that, as to whether the Plaintiffs are entitled to any compensation, the answer lies in Section 43 (1) and (2) of the Data Protection Act, 2012, (Act 843) which states and I quote “43 (1) where an individual suffers damages or distress through the contravention by a Data Controller of the requirement of this Act, that individual is entitled to compensation from the Data Controller for the damage or distress”. 
(2) In proceedings against a person under this Section, it is a defence to prove that the person took reasonable care in all the circumstances to comply with the requirements of this Act”. 
Per the evidence on record, the Court finds as a fact that, Exhibits ‘A’ and ‘B’ filled in the office of the Defendant Bank by the Plaintiffs herein contain vital personal information of the Plaintiffs.    
It is also a fact that, the aforementioned Exhibits found their way into the hands of the Plaintiff via a bread seller and a customer of the bread seller described here as the caller or informant.      
It is further a fact that the discovery of Exhibits ‘A’ and ‘B’ in the possession of the bread seller and her customer put fear, anxiety and distress into the plaintiffs which made them to run after the Defendant Bank for one or the other solution.   The Defendant Bank per its representative in this court never denied the fact that, Exhibits ‘A’ and ‘B’ containing very vital personal information of the Plaintiffs were not left in their custody or control for protection and safe keeping. 
Judging therefore, from the evidence on record and the facts of findings made, I am of the view that, the Defendant’s Bank has been negligent in its handling and control of Exhibits ‘A’ and ‘B’ which contain vital personal information of the plaintiffs that have been deposited in the care and custody of the bank for safe keeping.   
I therefore hold the view that, the plaintiffs have been able to persuade me to belief that, their side of the evidence on record is more probable than that of the defendant for which 
 
10 
JUSTICE E. K. MENSAH, JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT   
  EWURABENA SACKEY & OR VS UNITED BANK FOR AFRICA 
reason they are entitled to reliefs (a), (b), (c) and (d) as endorsed on the Writ of Summons and the accompanying statement of claim filed on the 25th March, 2013. 
Consequently, the Court enters Judgment for the Plaintiffs on the said above mentioned reliefs and Order as follows; 
(a) The Court orders the Defendant Bank to within 14 days from the date of this judgment (i.e. 29th April, 2016) to render an unqualified apology in writing to the Plaintiffs for the embarrassment caused to them.  (b) On the issue of damages, the Court takes into consideration the panic, anxiety, fear, distress and also the time period of litigation and of course the expenses made in litigating over the matter.   In the circumstances of this, the Court holds the view that, cash the of sum GH?20,000.00 (Twenty Thousand Ghana Cedis only) to each of the 1st and 2nd Plaintiffs is most appropriate as compensation and it is accordingly ordered. (c) It is further ordered that, the Defendant’s Bank, its agents, servants, assigns, representatives and any other person acting on its behalf are restrained from further publishing the personal Bank details of the 1st and 2nd Plaintiffs to the general public unlawfully. (d) Cost of GH?5,000 to the Plaintiffs as against the Defendant’s Bank. 
                 
                       (SGD.)         JUSTICE E. K. MENSAH         JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT       
               LAWYERS: ELIS QUARSHIGA FOR THE PLAINTIFFS PRESENT NUTSIFAFA NUTSUKPUI FOR THE DEFENDANT PRESENT 
 
11 
JUSTICE E. K. MENSAH, JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT   
  EWURABENA SACKEY & OR VS UNITED BANK FOR AFRICA 
                                                                                                                                            