BEST POINT SAVINGS & LOANS LIMITED vs SAMDOE 2002 LIMITED & ORS

INTRODUCTION

The Plaintiff issued a writ of summons and statement of claim on 8th February, 2022 claiming the following reliefs against the Defendants;

(a) Recovery of an amount of Two Hundred and Twenty Six Thousand Five Hundred and Twenty Three Ghana Cedis Forty Pesewas (Ghs 226.523.40) as at 13th January, 2022.

(b) Interest on relief (a) from 14th January, 2022 at the contractual rate of 4% per month and penal rate of 0.5% per month on each installment which was not funded on the due date.

(c) Cost

(d) Further / or in the alternative an order for the judicial sale of the mortgaged property being a landed property with a building thereon being the property of the 2nd Defendant.

The Defendants entered conditional appearance on 17th February, 2022 and subsequently filed statement of defence without a counterclaim on 2nd March, 2022 and for that matter waived the conditional appearance. After pleadings closed and application for direction was to be taken Counsel for Defendants prayed the Court to order the Plaintiff to go into account with the Defendants per paragraph (10) of the Defendants’ statement of defence. The Court ordered the Plaintiff to go into account with the Defendants and adjourned the case for the parties to go into account as prayed. Thereafter the parties informed the Court that they intend to settle the matter and the parties further intimated to the Court that the Defendants made a proposal to the Plaintiff but the Plaintiff did not accept it and therefore settlement broke down. Application for directions was taken and the parties were to file their witness statements but the Defendants exercised an option not to file witness statement and not to testify at the trial.

The Court delivered its ruling with reference to the case of John Dramani Mahama v. Electoral Commission and Nana Addo Dankwa Akuffo- Addo dated 11th February 2021, Suit No. J1/5/2021 and stated that the Court cannot compel the Defendants to file witness statements and adduce evidence if the Defendants elect not to do so. The Court declined Counsel for Plaintiff’s prayer to the Court to strike out the Defendants’ statement of defence and noted that the Defendants’ election not to file witness statement and to adduce evidence is a risk the Defendants have taken and that the Court would proceed with the available evidence before it. The Court allowed the Defendants to participate in the trial and for Counsel for Defendants to cross– examine the Plainti