ALFRED ALORBU VS STEPHEN AYESU & ANOR
2016
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- HER LADYSHIP BARBARA TETTEH-CHARWAY (J)
Areas of Law
- Contract Law
- Evidence Law
2016
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The Plaintiffs claimed GH¢97,000 from the Defendants stating it was a loan for contract execution to be repaid with 32% interest. The Defendants contested, claiming it was an investment in a joint venture. The court, examining both documentary evidence and witness testimonies, found the amount advanced was GH¢83,475.80, not subject to an interest rate of 32% as there was no evidence supporting such an agreement. The Defendants were ordered to repay GH¢83,475.80 with interest at the prevailing bank rate from 30th November 2009 until final payment.
The Plaintiffs' claim against the Defendants was for an amount of GH¢97,000.00 together with interest at 32% from 1st September 2009 up to and inclusive of the date of final payment. It was the Plaintiffs’ case that an amount of GH¢97,000.00 was given to the Defendants, an Architectural Consultant and a Contractor respectively, to enable them execute a contract awarded to them by GLO (Gh) Ltd. The Defendants’ version of events was that they did not approach the Plaintiffs for financial assistance in their personal capacities. The transaction they entered into with the Plaintiffs was for their company to enter into a partnership with the Plaintiffs’ Companies to execute a contract which they, the Defendants, had secured from GLO (Gh) Ltd. The Defendants stated further that in furtherance of this agreement, the Plaintiffs advanced GH¢83,475.80, which consisted of GH¢70,000.00 in cash and GH¢13,475.80 worth of materials supplied. The cash and materials, the Defendants averred, were meant as the Plaintiffs’ contribution to the joint venture that both parties had entered into.
The Plaintiffs stated in their evidence that the agreement the parties entered into was an oral one. They had agreed that the money should be disbursed to the Defendants in tranches. The Defendants then were to repay the money within 3 months after the last tranche had been disbursed to them. PW1, a clergyman, told the court he received a report from the 2nd Plaintiff in which he had complained that the Defendants had borrowed money from he and the 1st Plaintiff and had refused to pay. Since all the 4 people involved were members of his church, he and another pastor in the church met to resolve issues between the parties. He found out from their deliberations that the money advanced to the Defendants was from a bank loan the Plaintiffs had contracted. According to him, at the meeting, the parties all agreed that the outstanding amount due to the Plaintiffs was GH¢97,000.00. The Defendants, he said, informed them that the delay in making payments was due to some actions taken by GLO (Gh) Ltd. He said the Defendants promised to make good on these payments but had failed to do so.
The 1st Defendant, who gave evidence on his own behalf and for and on behalf of the 2nd Defendant, told the court that they approached the Plaintiffs for an amount of GH¢100,000.00 to be used to carry out a contract given to them by GLO (Gh) Ltd. It was his contention that the profit of the job would amount to GH