Try asking the following...
JUDGMENT
The Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant was for the sum of GH¢44, 442. 20 being the installation of work done in the Defendant’s offices together with a daily interest at 25% of the amount owed from October 2011 to date of final payment.
It was the Plaintiff’s case as captured in its Statement of Claim that the parties entered into an agreement for the Plaintiff to lease photocopier machines and toners.
The Plaintiff was also to maintain and repair the said equipment as well as to replace all defective parts and to ensure that the equipment was in good working order for the entire lease period.
According to the Plaintiff, it had carried out its part of the bargain by installing, maintaining and repairing the leased equipment.
To this end, it had spent an amount of GH¢44, 442. 20. The Defendant on the other hand, had failed to makegood on its indebtedness to the Plaintiff.
The Plaintiff further maintained that by paragraph 10 of the agreement, it was entitled after 10 days of delivery of the Invoice to the Defendant a daily interest of 25% above the published daily interest rate if the Invoice remained unpaid.
The Defendant in its defence stated that its obligation was to pay for the lease of the photocopiers and not for their installation.
Whilst admitting that it had entered an agreement where there would be an interest rate of 25% above the daily published interest rate, it contended that same was not enforceable in law.
The parties managed to reach agreement on the principal sum claimed leaving the outstanding issue of the interest rate applicable for trial.
The issues set down for trial were as follows:
1. Whether or not the Defendant is bound to pay the daily interest of 25% as per the terms of the contract?
2. Whether or not the agreement for the payment of 25% daily interest rate is unconscionable and thus unenforceable?
3. Any other issue(s) that may arise from the pleadings.
The Plaintiff’s representative in his evidence on oath told the court that he gave the agreement to the Defendant who kept it for over 3 months before signing it and returning it to him.
He gave the total interest figure due to him asGH¢1, 706, 572. 00. The Defendant’s representative told the court that agreements the Defendant entered into never had any interest clauses.
This was because it was a government institution which always made delayed payments.
He admitted that the Defendant employed legal officers who usually went through documents before the