Try asking the following...
JUDGMENT
QUAYE, JA
In the cause that is still pending final determination in the trial High Court (Fast Track) the plaintiff/respondents, who are a corporate body, established under the laws of Ghana to engage in the banking business, commenced the action by writ of summons on 5th April 2005, for the recovery of ¢18, 033. 477, 450. 14 which they alleged was the outstanding unpaid amount including interest on a 120 days deferred letter of credit facility of US$1, 000, 000. 00 they granted the 1st Defendant/appellant on 27th February 1998. The facility was valid for 24 months, with a condition for review at six months intervals.
The said facility was secured by the 1st Defendant/appellant with a landed property better described as Plot No. 56 Ring Road North Industrial Area, Accra belonging to the 2nd defendant/appellant.
In addition the 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th defendants/appellants executed a joint guarantee for the facility.
On the due date the 1st Defendant/appellant failed to liquidate their indebtedness.
After the respondents had formally made a demand for the payment, and upon failure by the appellants to pay, the respondents filed the said action.
The 1st defendant/appellant is a body corporate.
The defendants/appellants jointly entered appearance per their Solicitor on 15th April 2005 and filed a defence on 29th August 2005. In their statement of defence, the appellants admitted paragraphs 1 – 6 of the plaintiff/respondent’s statement of claim.
Those paragraphs inter alia recited the grant of facility aforesaid, the conditions attached thereto and the security and guarantees executed by the defendants/appellants in that behalf.
The second leg of the statement of defence was an example of what is known in law as confession and avoidance.
SIEVERS VRS. BROWN 216 Miss 801, 63502d 217, 219 explained a plea in confession and avoidance as one which avows and confesses the truth of the averments of fact in the complaint or declaration, either expressly or by implication, but then proceeds to allege new matter which tends to deprive the facts admitted of their ordinary legal effect; or to obviate, neutralize, or avoid them.
Indeed after the defendants/appellants had unequivocally admitted the facility as stated in paragraphs 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the respondents statement of claim, they devoted paragraphs 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 of the statement of defence to denial of the debt alleging that the parties, that is to say, both the plaintiffs/responde