EASY FAST MICROFINANCE CO. LTD. VS VED ENGINEERING SERVICES LTD. & ORS
July 28, 2016
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- HIS LORDSHIP K. A. OFORI ATTA
Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Commercial Law
- Banking and Finance Law
July 28, 2016
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
A microfinance lender, formerly KDE Financial Services, sued a microfinance borrower and its two director-guarantors to recover GH84,783.23 plus 8% monthly interest and costs, alleging consolidated loan facilities granted between 2009 and 2011 with post-dated cheques later withheld for lack of funds. The lender sought summary judgment under Order 14(1) of C.I. 47. The High Court reviewed the Order 14 standard, citing Sam Jonah v Duodu Kumi, Jacob v Booths Distillery, and Prestige Ltd v Ferns International. The defendants opposed, asserting plaintiffs lack of capacity (loans allegedly with KDE Financial Services), full repayment without receipts, and absence of a Bank of Ghana microfinance licence. Recognizing pronounced disputes (even appointing an expert on accounts), the judge held these issues warranted trial. The court granted unconditional leave to defend and refused summary judgment.
On 21st January, 2014, the plaintiff caused the writ of summons herein to be issued out of the Registry of this court for the following reliefs: “(a) An order for the recovery of the sum of GH¢84, 783. 23 form defendants being outstanding indebtedness on consolidated facilities granted them as at 17th May, 2013.
b) Interest on the aforesaid sum on the agreed rate of 8% monthly from 17th May, 2013 to the date of final payment.
c) Costs on a full indemnity basis. ”The write was issued and served alongside a statement of claim.
From the said state of claim, the material facts of the plaintiff’s case are that the plaintiff formerly known as KDE Financial Services, was at all material times licensed to operate microfinance services.
The 1st defendant also provides microfinance services with the 2nd and 3rd defendants as its directors.
Between 2009 and 2011, the 1st defendant applied for various loan facilities from the plaintiff which were all approved and granted.
The 2nd and 3rd defendants guaranteed the repayment of the facilities.
By mutual agreement, the several loan facilities were consolidated bringing the defendants’ total indebtedness to GH¢37, 000. 00 as at 1st August 2011 at the monthly interest rate of 8%. Subsequently, in a purported effort to liquidate the consolidated facility, 1st defendant issued four post-dated cheques to cover the outstanding indebtedness but on the due dates, defendants informed plaintiff not to present the cheques for paucity of funds in their account.
It is the plaintiff’s case that all attempts to recover the outstanding indebtedness from the defendants had proved futile such that as at 17th May, 2013 the defendants were truly and justly indebted to the plaintiff in the sum claimed.
Upon the service of the processes on them, defendants entered appearance through counsel and filed a statement of defence to the claims. On 11th February, 2014, the plaintiff filed an application for summary judgement for the reliefs endorsed on the writ of summons under Order 14(1) of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 2004, C. I. 47. The supporting affidavit was in substance a reproduction of the material facts contained in the statement of claim together with several annexed documents.
Supplementary affidavits in support were also filed.
Order 14 rule (1) of C. I. 47 pursuant to which the application has been brought provides that: “Where in an action a defendant has been served with a statement of claim and has filed appeara