AGRICULTURAL DEV. BANK v. JOWAK COMMODITIES LTD & JOHN OWUSU AMANKWAH
2018
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
- K. A. ACQUAYE JA (PRESIDING)
- BARBARA ACKAH-YENSU JA
- TANKO AMADU JA
Areas of Law
- Property Law
2018
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The case involved a financial dispute where the Plaintiff successfully proved their claim for recovery of debts and interest. The Defendants' counterclaim against the Plaintiff was dismissed. The decision highlights the importance of due diligence in financial transactions and the burden of proof in counterclaims.
JUDGMENT
BARBARA ACKAH-YENSU, JA
The Plaintiff/Respondent (hereinafter simply referred to as the Respondent) instituted the action culminating in this appeal, against the Defendants/Appellants (also to be referred to simply as the Appellants). The claim was for:
“1. Recovery of the sum of Gh¢552,486,368.50 being monies owed and due the Plaintiff as financial facility granted the Defendant.
2. Interest on the sum at the agreed rate of 15% per annum from the 30th June 2010 to date of final judgment”.
These are the matters that gave rise to the action at the trial High Court.
The Respondent is a financial institution registered and doing business in Ghana. The 1st Appellant is a limited liability company registered under the laws of Ghana and a customer of the Plaintiff. The 2nd Appellant is the Managing Director of the 1st Appellant-Company. By their Amended Statement of Claim, the Respondent at the request of Appellants approved a loan facility of Gh¢3,000,000.00 on
2nd January, 2010 to 1st Appellant to purchase 99,000 mini bags of maize for storage and re-sale under a dual control arrangement with the 2nd Appellant guaranteeing the facility. It was agreed between the Parties that the facility should attract interest of 33% per annum. The facility granted the Appellants was secured with a charge over their plant and machinery which was executed by the 2nd Appellant, together with a Directors’/Shareholders’ Indemnity. Respondent disbursed the loan facility to the Appellants in tranches.
The first tranche of Gh¢1,500,000.00 was paid in February 2010, which 1st Appellant used to purchase and store 52,000 mini bags to maize. After releasing the first tranche, the Appellants applied for the release of the second tranche in April 2010 to purchase and store the remaining bags of maize which was 47, 000mini bags. The release of the second tranche was contingent upon fulfillment of dual control over the stocks to be ensured at the storage site by the Respondent and the 1st Appellant. According to the Respondent, the available warehouse for the storage of the maize could not contain the remaining 47, 000 mini bags. As a result, the Respondent disbursed Gh¢550,000.00 to the Appellant for the purchase and storage of 25,000 mini bags of maize in May 2010.
In all, the Respondent released an amount of Gh¢2,050,000.00 to the Appellants for the purchase and storage of maize, however, the Appellants have defaulted in its repayment. As at 31st January 2011 the Appel