JUDGEMENT

BAFFOE-BONNIE AG. CJ:-

Indeed he who is quick to borrow is slow to pay. The 1st Defendant entered into a loan agreement with the Plaintiff for an amount of money in the year 2011. The amount was duly given to the 1st Defendant however when it was time for the repayment of the loan in 2013, the 1st Defendant says it is not responsible for the repayment of the money. For over twelve (12) years, the parties are still in court fighting over who is to repay the said amount. What really went on? The facts giving rise to the matter before us are as follows.

For purposes of brevity, we shall refer to the Plaintiff/Respondent/Respondent as Plaintiff and the Defendants/Appellants/Appellants as the Defendants. The Plaintiff averred in their Statement of Claim that a short term loan facility of GHC 850,000.00 was advanced to the 1st Defendant on 23rd May, 2011. As directors of the 1st Defendant Company, 2nd and 3rd Defendants gave securities for the repayment of the facility by executing a joint and several guarantees supported by their personal net worth statement, assignments and receivables from the sale of the housing units being financed by the Plaintiff and a surety mortgage over property situate at Sakumono. Plaintiff’s case is that the Defendants undertook to repay the facility on or before the 17th of July, 2013 but have failed to do so, hence this action whereby the Plaintiff claimed against the Defendants jointly and severally the following reliefs;

a. Recovery of the sum of GHC 941,211.07 being outstanding balance as at October 1, 2014.

Or in the alternative

b. The judicial sale of company’s office building located at Sakumono, Tema Community 13.

c. Interest at 37.9% per annum on the sum of GH 941,211.07 from October 1, 2014 to date of final payment.

d. Cost of litigation including lawyers’ fees

e. And any further or other reliefs as the court may deem fit.

The Defendants on the other hand denied the averments of the Plaintiff and contended that although on paper the amount advanced is stated as GHC 850,000.00 it was only GHC 535,000.00 that was advanced by the Plaintiff to the 1st Defendant. The Statement of Defence provides that the 1st Defendant had previously taken a loan of GHC 315,036.50 which had been paid long ago however the Plaintiff continued to repeat this amount in the 1st Defendant’s statement of account which was an error. It is the case of the 2nd and 3rd Defendants that the join