FIRST ATLANTIC BANK LIMITED VS VIVIAN ATAKORA (a.k.a.) MRS. VIVIAN MARFO)
2016
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- HER LADYSHIP JUSTICE AKUA SARPOMAA AMOAH (MRS.)
Areas of Law
- Banking and Finance Law
- Evidence Law
- Contract Law
2016
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The case involved a dispute over the repayment of an overdraft facility provided by the Plaintiff bank to the Defendant. The Plaintiff claimed that the Defendant was in arrears, while the Defendant argued illiteracy and unauthorized transactions. The court found that the Defendant was liable for the amount owed minus GH¢30,000 wrongly debited to her account. The court rejected the Defendant’s illiteracy claim and held her to the terms of the overdraft agreement. The court also determined that the Plaintiff bank failed to prove that the Defendant authorized all transactions, specifically an altered cheque transaction.
The facts that have spawned the present litigation are fairly straightforward.
The Defendant, a customer of Plaintiff bank applied for and was granted an overdraft facility in the sum of Twenty Thousand Ghana Cedis (GH¢20, 000. 00) to augment her working capital.
Plaintiff avers that the overdraft facility was to attract an agreed interest rate of 23% per annum with a penal rate of 3. 5% over and above the agreed rate in the event of the Defendant’s account being overdrawn or payments becoming overdue.
The facility granted was secured with a mortgage over Defendant’s property situate at Ablekuma, Accra.
It is the case of the Plaintiff that Defendant, at the expiration of the facility, had fallen into arrears of payment and that her indebtedness to Plaintiff stood at One Hundred and Ninety-Three Thousand, Six Hundred and Sixty-Three Ghana Cedis, Twelve Pesewas (GH¢193, 663. 12) as at 31st October, 2014. The Defendant, however had in spite of repeated demands on her to make good her indebtedness failed or refused to do so.
It is for this reason that the Plaintiff on the 19th of February, 2015 issued the present writ, claiming the followings against Defendant: a) An order for payment of the sum of One hundred and Ninety Three thousand, Six Hundred and Sixty Three Ghana Cedis, Twelve Pesewas (193, 663. 12) being the balance due and owing on the facilities granted Plaintiff.
b). Interest on the said sum of One Hundred and Ninety Three Thousand and Sixty three Thousand Cedis (193, 663. 12) at the agreed interest rate of 26. 5% per annum from 16th September, 2014 to date of final payment.
c. ) Further or in the alternative an order for judicial sale of Defendant’s property described in the Statement of Claim and used as collateral security for the said facility.
d) Costs.
The Defendant disputes the Plaintiff’s claim.
Her defence is basically that the Plaintiff neither explained the terms of the facility to her nor advised her to engage legal Counsel even though she is illiterate.
She admitted taking an overdraft facility of Twenty Thousand Ghana Cedis (GH¢20, 000. 00) but explained that the facility was a “supplier credit” by which Plaintiff made payments directly to suppliers and debited her account as and when such payments were made and after she had taken delivery of the goods in question.
She denied Plaintiff’s assertion that the overdraft had fallen into arrears and contended that the balance attributed to her was wrong and overstated.
The foll