FELIBAT COLDSTORE LIMITED v. STANBIC BANK GHANA LIMITED
2022
SUPREME COURT
CORAM
- DOTSE JSC (PRESIDING)
- LOVELACE-JOHNSON (MS.) JSC
- AMADU JSC
- PROF. MENSA-BONSU (MRS.) JSC
- KULENDI JSC
Areas of Law
- Contract Law
- Tort Law
- Civil Procedure
- Evidence Law
2022
SUPREME COURT
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The Supreme Court of Ghana, per Dotse JSC, dismissed the appeal by the Plaintiff against the Court of Appeal’s decision arising from a dispute with its former banker over a restructured loan, detention of title deeds, and penalty charges. Plaintiff had admitted indebtedness and proposed a 12‑month consolidation and repayment plan totaling GH¢450,000, which it paid, then sought release of security documents. Defendant bank insisted GH¢72,463 remained due, leading to High Court litigation. The High Court ordered release of the deeds, awarded GH¢30,000 general damages for detinue, and rejected special damages and a penalty refund. The Court of Appeal dismissed Defendant’s appeal, ordered a refund of GH¢93,366.60 penalty charges with interest, recognized detinue and general damages, and dismissed the cross‑appeal on costs. On further appeal, the Supreme Court held Plaintiff failed to strictly prove special damages, sustained the GH¢30,000 general damages as adequate, and enhanced costs to GH¢40,000, affirming the case outcome save on costs.
DOTSE JSC:-
PREFACE
This court, on the 6th day of July 2022, by a unanimous decision dismissed the appeal filed by the Plaintiffs against the Court of Appeal judgment dated 29th May 2022 save the ground of appeal against costs which we sustained.
We hereby proceed to give reasons for our said decision.
FACTS
The facts giving rise to this present appeal are that the Plaintiff/Respondent/Appellant (hereinafter referred to as Plaintiff previously a customer of Defendant/Appellant/Respondent, (hereinafter referred to as Defendant) Bank obtained a loan facility from the Defendant. The Plaintiff has averred in its statement of claim that it was unable to fulfill its repayment obligations to the Defendant Bank due to some challenges.
By a letter dated 30th November 2010, the Plaintiff admitted its indebtedness of GH¢481,922.78 to the Defendant and proposed a re-scheduling of the loan facility. The Plaintiff’s proposal was as follows:
“We wish to apply for a re-scheduling of the facilities as follows to enable us settle our indebtedness to the bank:
(i)That all the 3 facilities be consolidated and treated as a term loan for a 12 months duration.
(ii)That the total outstanding balance as at 21st May 2010 of GH¢ 481,022.78 (interest inclusive) be maintained at GH¢ 450,000.00 (waving off GH¢ 31,922.78).
(iii)That the re-scheduled term of GH¢ 450,000.00 shall attract no interest thereon.
(iv)That the re-scheduled loan will be paid in 12 equal installments of GH¢37,500.00for a period of 12 months.”
The Defendant by a letter dated 20th January 2011, responded to the Plaintiff’s letter and stated that “The bank in principle is agreeable to reviewing its current interest charges on the account and also consider the restructuring proposal subject to the payment of GH¢120,000.00 by three equal installments of GH¢ 40,000.00 by post dated cheques to be lodged with the Bank to mature on the last working day of the months of January, February and March.”
After receipt of this letter and upon having further discussions with the relationship manager at the bank, the Plaintiff made payments of GH¢ 40,000.00 from January to September 2011 and an additional payment of GH¢ 30,000.00 from October 2011 to December 2011. These payments amounted to GH¢450,000.00.
The Plaintiff on 13thJanuary 2012, through their lawyers, wrote to the Defendant stating that upon completing payment of the loan facility they are requesting that all the title deeds of all properties used to secu