GOOD NEWS CO-OP. CREDIT UNION v. ALHAJI MOHAMMED MUSAH

JUDGMENT

This is a debt recovery action. Per the endorsement on the Plaintiff’s writ of summons, the debit balance on a loan allegedly granted to the Defendant in September, 2012 stood at GH¢ 72,300.00. The Plaintiff also claimed interest on this amount at the prevailing bank rate. Alternatively, the Plaintiff sought an order for judicial sale of property numbered Plot 95 Block D, New Kyekyere in Kumasi.

The Defendant did not deny taking the said loan. His defence was that even though he has executed the contract in respect of which he took the loan, payments remain outstanding and this fact is known to the Plaintiff. He also challenged the payments which the Plaintiff said it had so far received.

By way of reply, the Plaintiff averred that no bank account was opened in the joint names of the parties but cheques were to be issued in their joint names. Further, the Plaintiff stated that an enquiry conducted at the Komfo Anokye Teaching Hospital (KATH) administration proved that the first payment has already been made to the Defendant. It was the Plaintiff’s case that per the offer letter, payment ought to have been made within three months and that the mode of payment by KATH was to ensure that the loan was paid. It was therefore not a condition for the repayment of the loan.

Three straight forward issues were set down for this trial:

Whether or not the repayment of the loan Plaintiff granted to the Defendant Company was contingent upon KATH paying the Defendant the contract fee between KATH and the Defendant?

Whether or not the Defendant was to pay the loan facility within three months of disbursement?

Whether or not Plaintiff is entitled to its claims?

The Defendant never appeared in court ever since the case was listed for trial. His counsel sought numerous adjournments to resort to an out-of-court settlement. However, the parties were unable to agree on terms.

The case was again fixed for hearing on 23/01/2014. A hearing notice was duly served on Counsel for the Defendant as evidenced by the affidavit of service filed on 17/01/2014. The Defendant and his counsel failed to attend court and no reasons were given for their absence. Thus, the Court allowed the Plaintiff to prove its case on 23/01/2014 under Order 36 rule 1 (2) (a) of the High Court (Civil procedure) Rules, 2004 C.I. 47. This rule states:

Rule (1) (2) where an action is called for trial and a party fails to attend, the trial judge may:

(a) Where the Plaintiff attends and the defen