2016
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The Plaintiff/Appellant bank appealed against the Trial Court's decision dismissing its suit for an unpaid overdraft balance. The Trial Court had held that the Plaintiff's attorney lacked the capacity to sue and that the Plaintiff had not sufficiently proven the claimed debt. On appeal, the court found that the Plaintiff had indeed provided sufficient evidence of the debt and the attorney had the necessary authority. The appeal was upheld, and judgment was entered for the Appellant for GH¢131,149.14 plus prevailing interest until final payment.
Law of Contract - Implied Terms - Evidence Act - Sufficient Evidence - Power of Attorney
TORKORNOO (MRS), J. A.
The background facts of this case were largely accepted by the parties.
The Defendant/Respondent is the customer of the Plaintiff/Appellant bank.
Between June and August of 2008, the Appellant allowed the Respondent to overdraw from his account up to GH¢200,000 to enable him to pay for the construction of a warehouse.
Though there was no facility agreement over the overdraft, the Respondent deposited the title deed of property situated at Plot No. 31, Block ADB, Parakuo Estate, Adiembra, Kumasi, as security for the credit facility.
Thereafter, the Respondent failed to pay off the debit balance on his account.
The Appellant’s amended Statement of Claim was for the following reliefs:
a. Recovery of the sum of One Hundred and Thirty-One Thousand, One Hundred and Forty-Nine Ghana Cedis, Fourteen Ghana Pesewas (GH¢131,149.14), inclusive of interest, being the outstanding balance of an overdraft facility extended to Defendant by Plaintiff.
b. Interest at the prevailing bank rate from 1st May, 2011, till the date of final payment.
c. And/or in the alternative, judicial Sale of Property situated at Plot No. 31, Block ADB, Parakuo Estate, Adiembra, Kumasi, in satisfaction or part satisfaction of the facility.
In his defense, the Respondent averred that he had originally applied to the bank for a loan of GH¢300,000 to be repaid within four years.
In paragraph 5 of his Statement of Defense found on page 6 of the Record of Appeal (ROA), he said that on the 18th June, 2008, the Appellant granted him an initial GH¢100,000, “which was converted into an overdraft facility instead of a loan facility.”
On the 7th and 12th August, 2008, he was given further sums of GH¢80,000 and GH¢20,000, respectively.
Before the last installment of GH¢100,000 was released, the Appellant’s officials informed him that due to a change in government, the final installment could not be advanced.
His case was that the failure to give him the full GH¢300,000 loan led to his inability to complete the warehouse project on time, the need to find alternate resources to complete the facility, a collapse of his business, and his inability to repay the debt.
It was the case of the Respondent that the conduct of the Appellant in refusing to grant him the full loan amount he had applied for constituted a breach of a loan agreement they had.
He counterclaimed for:
1. An order d