BSIC (GH) LIMITED VS ZEBRA INVESTMENT GROUP LTD & ORS
2018
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- JUSTICE GEORGE BUADI J.
Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Contract Law
- Banking and Finance Law
2018
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
This case involves a bank (plaintiff) suing corporate entities and individuals (defendants) for recovery of unpaid credit facilities. The court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, finding that the defendants owed the claimed amount plus interest. The judgment emphasizes the importance of proper pleadings, the shifting burden of proof in civil trials, and the principle that courts generally uphold voluntary contractual agreements. The court allowed the plaintiff to recover the debt and enforce the mortgages, but limited execution on mortgaged properties as an alternative to direct debt recovery. The case illustrates key principles in civil procedure, contract law, and banking law.
1. 0 Background
1. 1 The law implicated in this suit involves largely first, the nature and importance of pleadings in civil proceedings; second, the courts’ attitude to ambivalent and prevaricated pleadings; and third, the burden if any that the law places on a defendant in civil proceedings; and fourth, the burden if any on parties to provide proof of fact admitted or impliedly admitted in pleadings.
Order 11 Rule 131; Hammond v Odoi & Anor [1982-83] GLR 1215, SC; Dam v Addo [1962] 2 GLR 200, SC.
The decision also addresses the issue of capacity of the court on its own during cross-examination to raise legal issues that had been implicated during and at the cross-examination, and then whether the court can make an award for damages when the victorious party did not ask for the relief in the writ of summons and statement of claim.
1. 2 The plaintiff, the 1st defendant, and the 3rd defendants are all local corporate entities.
The plaintiff provides banking services.
The 1st defendant is in the export, import, supply, and sale of general goods including building materials, and the 2nd defendant is its managing director.
The 3rd defendant is alleged to have used its residential property as additional security for repayment of facilities that the plaintiff claims to have granted to the 1st defendant upon provision of assurances and securities by the 2nd and 3rd defendants for repayment of the facilities.
1. 3 Upon claims of failure to liquidate the facilities despite claims of demand notices and reminders, the plaintiff by writ of summons on 11 March 2016 commenced this action against the defendants.
The writ and the statement of claim were on 16 May 2018 amended pursuant to leave of the court for the following reliefs against the defendants:
a. Recovery of the sum of GH¢2,525,116.42 being as of 31st day of October, 2015 the total indebtedness in respect of the said credit facility granted by the plaintiff to the 1st defendant.
b. Recovery of the agreed interest of 34% per annum on the amount in (a) from the 31st day of October, 2015 to the date of final payment.
c. Recovery of the agreed penal rate of 12% on the facility amount above the agreed interest rate on (a) above from the 31st day of October, 2015 to the final date of payment.
d. An order for judicial sale for the commercial property located at Plot No. 55, Tema Motorway Industrial Area belonging to the 1st defendant.
e. An order for judicial sale of the uncompleted two-storey r