BARCLAYS BANK (D.C.O.) LTD. v. PERSEVERANCE TRANSPORT SERVICES LTD.

JUDGMENT OF APALOO, J.

By an originating summons taken out of this court on the 15th August, 1960, the plaintiff-bank sought a declaration that by virtue of a memorandum and deposit of an equitable charge the plaintiff-bank are entitled to be considered as mortgagees of the lands and hereditaments comprised in the memorandum and sought an order to have the same enforced by sale or foreclosure. There were also sought some other consequential reliefs which it is unnecessary to set out at great length.

The plaintiff-bank is a well-known banking company. The defendant is a limited liability company. I have no evidence when it was incorporated or what the nature of its business is. Neither its memorandum of association or articles have been put in evidence. Its name, however, suggests that its business is that of running transport. It appears that it was at sometime prior to 1953 one of the customers of the plaintiff-bank. The evidence shows that credit facilities were extended to it before 1953. In that year, the defendant-company applied to the bank for a loan. It was asked to produce its authority to borrow. Accordingly, one of its officers produced to the bank what purports to be a resolution of its directors at a meeting held at Kumasi on the 15th December, 1953. It purports to have been signed by the chairman of the board of directors and the secretary. The seal of the company was duly affixed to it. It was put in evidence as exhibit A. This authorised the manager to raise on behalf of the company £G5,000 for the expansion of the company's activities. I am satisfied that on the faith of this the plaintiff-bank advanced various sums to the company. I am not able to determine what specific sum was advanced to the defendant-company on its production of exhibit A, but it seems clear however that sometime in 1954 or presumably before it, the plaintiff-bank asked for security for the repayment of the various sums it had advanced to the defendant-company. The evidence satisfies me that in compliance with [p.667] this request the defendant-company executed in favour of the plaintiff-bank the memorandum of equitable deposit which the plaintiff-bank now seeks to enforce. That memorandum was, it is to be noted, executed on behalf of the defendant-company by its director and secretary and the company's seal was duly affixed to it. It is not disputed in these proceedings that the execution of the equitable deposit was the act of the defendant-company.

As I have s