GOLDEN PRIDE SAVINGS & LOANS LIMITED VS MCOTTELEY CAPITAL LIMITED & 2 ORS.
2019
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- HER LADYSHIP MRS. ANGELINA MENSAH-HOMIAH J.
Areas of Law
- Contract Law
- Civil Procedure
- Corporate Law
2019
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The case involves the Plaintiff, a Savings and Loans company, seeking to recover GH₵600,000 loaned to the 1st Defendant, guaranteed by the 2nd and 3rd Defendants. The 1st Defendant defaulted on repayment. Evidence included a Loan Agreement and Deed of Guarantee. The Court held the 1st Defendant liable for repayment with interest, but absolved the 2nd and 3rd Defendants of personal liability due to their signing in official capacities. The Plaintiff's evidence was accepted, and judgment awarded in its favor. Costs were also imposed on the 1st Defendant.
The Plaintiff in this suit describes itself as a registered Limited Liability Company whose core business is Savings and Loans.
The 1st Defendant has also been described as an incorporated company.
In this suit, the Plaintiff seeks to recover the sum of Six Hundred Thousand Ghana Cedis(GH₵600, 000. 00) and interest thereon being a loan advanced to the 1st Defendant, and guaranteed by the 2nd and 3rd Defendants.
As gleaned from the Plaintiff’s Statement of Claim, the 1st Defendant, per a letter dated 15th September, 2014 with reference number FE/EU/RCF/14 VOL.
1, applied for the said loan to execute a contract awarded to it by the European Union Delegation to Ghana and same was granted on terms. The issues for trial as set down by the Pre-trial Judge and adopted by this court are: a. Whether or not the Defendants herein did apply for the original loan facility of Six Hundred Thousand Ghana Cedis (GH₵600, 000). 00 in or about the year 2014 from the Plaintiff.
b. Whether or not the said loan was granted to the Defendants in or about October, 2014 with agreed terms and conditions to apply in repayment.
c. Whether or not the 1st Defendant has expressly or impliedly conceded to being the primary applicant/beneficiary of the loan being the subject-matter of the suit.
d. Whether or not the 1st Defendant in particular has made some repayments on the loan advanced.
e. Whether or not the Defendants have defaulted in repayment terms and conditions f. Whether or not the Plaintiff is entitled to its reliefs.
In his evidence-in-chief before this Court, the head of Credit of the Plaintiff Company told the court that the 1st Defendant’s loan application dated 12th September, 2014 was duly approved on 30th September 2014, the Plaintiff and the 1st Defendant executed a Loan Agreement, same was guaranteed by the 2nd and 3rd Defendants, and the loan sum was disbursed.
However, he testified that the 1st Defendant defaulted in repayment which caused the Plaintiff to serve it with demand notices.
As further proof of the Plaintiff’s case, the witness tendered the Deed of Guarantee, the Loan Agreement and the Final Demand Notice as exhibits A, B and C respectively.
Exhibit ‘B’ is the Banking Facility Offer Letter.
The first paragraph thereof reads: THIS CREDIT FACILITY AGREEMENT IS MADE BETWEEN GOLDEN PRIDE SAVINGS AND LAONS LIMITED, hereinafter referred to as the LENDER AND MCOTTELEY CAPITAL, hereinafter referred to as the BORROWER.
On the face of exhibit ‘B’, the 2n