JUDGMENT OF PREMPEH J.
In this action, the plaintiffs claimed against the defendant the sum of £G1,076 11s. 7d being an amount due to them for the goods sold and delivered to the defendant. The defendant by his lawful attorney filed a defence admitting the plaintiffs' claim, but counter-claimed from the plaintiffs the sum of £G2,000 being an amount the payment of which was guaranteed by the plaintiffs.
In the counter-claim, it was pleaded that the defendant lent the sum of £G1,000 to one Mr. Nakouzi for which two cheques each for £G500 were issued by him in favour of the defendant for the payment of the debt, and that the repayment of this amount was guaranteed by the plaintiffs. It was further pleaded that the defendant lent also to one Mr. Koudsi the sum of £G1,000 for which a cheque for the sum of £G1,000 was issued by him in favour of the defendant for the payment of the debt, and that the repayment of this amount was guaranteed by the plaintiffs. He averred those cheques were dishonoured on presentation, but that in spite of repeated demands the plaintiffs had failed to make payment of the total sum of £G2,000.
In answer to this counter-claim the plaintiffs—apart from denying having guaranteed the payment of the debts due by Nakouzi and Koudsi—averred that the transactions were unlawful in so far as the sums of money in both cases were lent at interest of £G50 per month per G1,000. They averred further that if there was any guarantee—which they denied—the alleged guarantee did not comply with the Statute of Frauds, 1677, s. 41 and was therefore unenforceable. On the 6th September, 1962, judgment was entered with costs for the plaintiffs on their claim and the hearing of the counter-claim was then adjourned. In these circumstances I called upon the defendant to begin.
According to the evidence of the defendant's lawful attorney in Ghana, the defendant has been deported from the country but his business continues by his attorney and the chief clerk of the business was called as the first defence witness. This man has impressed me as a witness of truth, and I accept his evidence that he was present when the two friendly loans were given by the defendant to Nakouzi and Koudsi on which he charged no interest, and that he was the person who wrote out the cheques which [p.211] were post-dated for the said friendly loans which were signed by the defendant. I accept his further evidence that he was present when Elia Bou Chedid, one of the managing direct
