2016
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
Plaintiff obtained a credit facility using Defendant’s property as security and passed part to Defendant, who paid the interest. Plaintiff demanded an unpaid balance and additional interest, but Defendant claimed overpayment and demanded an accounting. Lower court ruled in favor of Plaintiff. On appeal, the court reversed, finding Defendant had paid the full amount and was entitled to the return of his title deeds. Legal principles from contract law, evidence law, and finance law were discussed.
TORKORNOO (MRS), J. A.
A popular West African pidgin urban street expression is “want want no get; get get no want”. This is the situation presented by this case where Plaintiff/Respondent (hereinafter referred to as Plaintiff) did not need credit from the bank but had access to it, and Defendant/Appellant (hereinafter referred to as Defendant) needed credit but did not have access to it.
According to the undisputed cases of the parties, the parties agreed that Plaintiff would obtain the credit facility from Stanbic Bank using the Defendant’s property as security, and pass on part of the facility to Defendant.
The Plaintiff got an overdraft facility of Fifty Thousand Ghana cedis (GH¢50, 000. 00) using the Defendant’s property as collateral in December 2007. He first handed over the sum of Ten Thousand Ghana cedis (GH¢10, 000. 00), later increased it to Twenty Thousand Ghana cedis (GH¢20, 000. 00) and by 2011, Defendant had utilized the full Fifty Thousand Ghana cedis (GH¢50, 000. 00) overdraft.
The parties agreed that the Defendant would pay the interest rate charged by Stanbic Bank for the part of the overdraft facility that was given to him, as well as share the other costs associated with the facility pro rata with the Plaintiff.
Right from the onset, Plaintiff being the one who had the contract with Stanbic Bank, informed Defendant that the interest payable on the credit facility was 33. 7% thus Defendant was to pay Three Hundred Ghana cedis (GH¢300. 00) on every Ten Thousand Ghana cedis (GH¢10, 000. 00). The result was that when Plaintiff gave Defendant Ten Thousand Ghana cedis (GH¢10, 000. 00), he took Three Hundred Ghana cedis (GH¢300. 00) every month.
When he gave him Twenty Thousand Ghana cedis (GH¢20, 000. 00), he took interest of Six Hundred Ghana cedis (GH¢600. 00). When he gave him Thirty Thousand Ghana cedis (GH¢30, 000. 00), Defendant paid Nine Hundred Ghana cedis (GH¢900. 00) as interest and when Defendant received Fifty Thousand Ghana cedis (GH¢50, 000. 00), Plaintiff took One Thousand Five Hundred Ghana cedis (GH¢1, 500. 00) from Defendant every month.
All these sums were ostensibly going to the bank in settlement of the interest on the part of the facility utilized by Defendant, as well as the relevant charges.
At some point in time, the Defendant refunded Ten Thousand Ghana cedis (GH¢10, 000. 00) out of the principal he had received.
According to Defendant, he also started demanding to see bank records on the facility.
Plainti