HFC BANK (GH) LTD v. HENRY HANSON-HALL
2016
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- A. M. DOMAKYAAREH (MRS), J. A. SITTING AS ADDITIONAL HIGH COURT JUDGE.
Areas of Law
- Banking and Finance Law
- Civil Procedure
- Contract Law
2016
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
This case involves HFC Bank (plaintiff) suing a customer (defendant) for defaulting on a restructured term loan. The defendant had borrowed GH₵120,000 in total, which was later restructured. After continued default, the bank sued for recovery of GH₵378,980.91 plus interest. The defendant filed a defense and counterclaim, arguing that the interest rates were harsh and unconscionable. However, due to the defendant's repeated absence from court proceedings, the defense and counterclaim were struck out. The court found in favor of the plaintiff, ordering the recovery of the full amount plus interest, costs, and alternatively, the judicial sale of the property used as security. The judgment emphasized the civil standard of proof (preponderance of probabilities) and the court's authority to strike out defenses when parties fail to comply with court procedures.
DOMAKYAAREH (MRS), J. A. (SITTING AS ADDITIONAL HIGH COURT JUDGE)
1. I this case, the plaintiff Bank filed a Writ of Summons against one of its customers, the defendant herein on 3rd October 2012 claiming the following reliefs: -
i. An order for the recovery of the sum of Three Hundred and Seventy Eight Thousand Nine Hundred and eighty Ghana Cedis Ninety One Pesewas (Gh¢378, 980. 91) being the amount outstanding in respect of restructured term loan granted to the defendant.
ii. Interest at HFC variable interest rate of 34. 03% per annum plus additional 10% penal interest per annum.
iii. Costs Or in the alternative
iv. Judicial sale of residential property at plot No. 231, Madina, Accra which was used as security for the grant of the restructured term loan.
2. The case of the plaintiff Bank is that sometime in April 2007, the defendant, a customer of the Bank requested for a term loan from the plaintiff to enable the defendant refurbish/complete his residential property into a guest house for rental purposes.
Pursuant to that request, the plaintiff granted a term loan of Gh¢80, 000. 00 on 30th July 2007 for a term of sixty (60) months at a variable interest rate of 34. 03% per annum.
On July 15, 2008, the defendant requested for an additional term loan of Gh¢40, 000. 00 to enable him meet the rising cost of building materials.
The plaintiff Bank approved this additional term loan for a term of sixty (60) months.
The defendant failed to honour the repayment terms and by 13th February 2009 the outstanding balance was Gh¢157, 250. 00. The plaintiff Bank sent a demand letter to that effect to the defendant.
On 23rd April 2010, the defendant wrote to the plaintiff requesting for the outstanding amount to be restructured.
The plaintiff acceded to this request and restructured the outstanding amount of Gh¢157, 250. 00 for a term of forty-eight (48) months at a variable interest rate of 34. 03% per annum.
As at the time of the booking of this facility, the past due balance and the loan balance stood at Gh¢204, 918. 33. The defendant agreed that the past due balance and the loan balance be put together and restructured.
The defendant again defaulted and repeated demands by the plaintiff to him yielded no results as he either failed and or refused to repay the loan.
The plaintiff Bank therefore sued the defendant as indicated earlier on seeking the court to compel the defendant to pay the outstanding amount as he will not do so unless compelled by th