2016
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The plaintiff sued the defendants for a sum of GH₵775,059.49 due to an unpaid loan facility and interest. The defendants disputed the loan amount and questioned the plaintiff's capacity to sue. However, the court found that the defendants failed to raise the issue of capacity in their initial pleadings and had admitted key facts, including the credit facilities received and their obligations. Based on the evidence, the court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, ordering the defendants to repay GH₵775,059.49 with interest and approved the judicial sale of the mortgaged property.
JUDGMENT
By an amended writ of summons the plaintiff claims against the defendants:
a. ‘Payment of the sum of GH₵775,059.49 being the outstanding sum in respect of credit facility granted 1st defendant by plaintiff.
b. Interest on the said sum compounded at the approved rate of 35.5% plus a margin of 125 per annum from the 1st day of August, 2012 till date of final payment.
c. An order for the judicial sale of the mortgaged property being a parcel of land measuring 13.66 situate at East Peduase, Dodowa in the Dangbe West district of the Greater Accra Region.
d. Costs.’
After the service of the writ and its accompanying statement of claim on the defendants, an appearance was entered followed by a statement of defence. Pre-trial settlement of the case was not successful hence; the matter was referred to trial. Before trial could commence however, the defendants discontinued the third-party action against the third party, that is, the Attorney General. The action was therefore heard between the plaintiff and the defendants. Witness statement was filed by the parties. At the trial, the plaintiff called its representative to give evidence after which the plaintiff closed its case. The defendants also gave evidence through the 2nd defendant and announced the closure of their case.
From the pleadings filed by the parties, the court finds that the 1st defendant company contracted two credit facilities from the plaintiff. The first credit facility was in the sum of GH₵207,000. The second credit facility, the plaintiff maintains, was also in the sum of GH₵168,000 but the defendants say was rather in the sum of GH₵167,000.
From the evidence on record however the court finds that on the 12th day of January, 2010 the 1st defendant company passed resolution to borrow a total of GH₵375,000 from the plaintiff bank. The court also finds from the evidence on record that on the 3rd February, 2010, the 2nd defendant, the Chief Executive Officer of the 1st defendant, executed a Credit Facility-Offer Letter, exhibit A herein from the plaintiff in which it accepted the sum of GH₵207,000 and the sum of GH₵168,000 respectively, being medium term loans from the plaintiff company. The court finds that the total of the amounts stated on the Credit Facility-Letter Offer sums up to GH₵375,000.00. The court finds that on the 20th October, 2010, the 1st defendant executed a Deed of Mortgage, exhibit B in which it acknowledged that it was indebted to the plaintiff in the sum of GH