DALEX FINANCE & LEASING CO VS TLG CAPITAL PARTNERS & 3 OTHERS
2015
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- JUSTICE JENNIFER A. DODOO (MRS)
Areas of Law
- Contract Law
- Corporate Law
- Civil Procedure
- Property and Real Estate Law
2015
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The plaintiff sought recovery of GH¢ 5,088,554.68 plus interest from the defendants based on a loan agreement backed by a mortgage. The defendants disputed the debt and challenged the mortgage's validity due to a lack of a board resolution. Notices were served, but the defendants failed to attend court. The court found the 1st Defendant liable for the debt and interest, held the 1st, 3rd, and 4th Defendants jointly and severally liable, and validated the mortgage despite the procedural irregularity, making the 2nd Defendant jointly liable. Costs were awarded against the defendants.
The Plaintiff’s claims against the Defendants jointly and severally were for the sum of GH¢5, 088, 554. 68 being the outstanding balance as at 19th March 2014, on a loan facility granted to them.
The Plaintiff also sued for compound interest of 3. 6% from 20th March 2014 till date of final payment.
In the alternative, the Plaintiff prayed for a judicial sale of the 2nd Defendant’s mortgaged property situate at Okpoi Gonno covering an area of 15. 41 acres and registered at the Land Title Registry with Certificate Number GA 37952. The Defendants in their Statement of Defence contended that they disputed their indebtedness and requested for an account to ascertain the true indebtedness.
They also contended that the security taken for the loan was void as there was no board resolution agreeing to the security.
The issues set down for trial were as follows: 1. Whether or not the 1st Defendant/Respondent is indebted to the Plaintiff for the sum of GH¢5, 088, 554. 68? 2. Whether or not the Defendants/Respondents are jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiff for the sum of GH¢5, 088, 554. 68? 3. Whether or not there was a Director’s Resolution approving the use of the 2nd Defendant’s property situate at Okpoi Gonno as security for the loan agreement of 11th March 2013 as a pre-condition for the grant of the loan? 4. Whether or not the Plaintiff is entitled to its claim? 5. Any issue(s) arising from the pleading.
The matter was set down for hearing on 4th March 2014. It was further adjourned to 18th March 2015. The Defendants’ Solicitors applied for leave to withdraw as Lawyers for the Defendants.
Hearing notices were ordered to be served personally on the Defendant for 30th April 2015. When this failed, hearing notices were ordered to be served by substitution which was carried out on 8th April 2015 by posting on the Court’s Notice Board and 13th April 2015 by publication in the Ghanaian Times.
Hearing Notices were again served by newspaper publication on 11th May 2015 for 28th and 29th May 2015. Neither the Defendants nor their Solicitors were in court on 28th and 29th May 2015 for the hearing of the matter.
In Ankumah v. City Investment Co.
Ltd (2007/2008) SCGLR 1064 it was held that a court was entitled to give judgment if a party failed to appear after he had been given notice of the proceedings.
For then it would be justifiable to assume that he did not wish to be heard.
In the case of Re: West Coast Dyeing and Another (1987/88) 2 GLR 561, the