Try asking the following...
JUDGMENT
The Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendants was for an amount of GH¢178, 000. 00with the various agreed interest(s) of 4% per month on the straight-line methodand 5% default and penal interest assessed on any outstanding sum unpaid per eachmonth till date of final payment.
The Plaintiff also sued for further interest of5% per month using the straight line method from 1st October onwards till date offinal payment.
In the alternative, the Plaintiff also sued for the judicial sale of the followingvehicles in satisfaction of the judgment debt: 1. KIA Optima with Registration Number GS 1353-12 2. Nissan Titan with Registration Number GR 9190-12 3. Toyota Tundra with Registration Number GS 1355-12 The Defendants in their Statement of Defence stated that they had paid asubstantial amount of the principal amount and the interest and denied owing thesum as endorsed on the writ.
They also contended that the Plaintiff did not allowthem to have independent legal advice before executing the agreement which they termed as being unconscionable.
As a result, in their joint defence, both Defendants deemed themselves not liable to the Plaintiff’s claim.
While the matter was pending, the Plaintiff applied for and obtained an orderdated 14th July 2014 for preservation of the vehicles used as collateral for theloan.
The issues set down for trial were as follows: 1. Whether the 1st Defendant was granted the loan facility on or about May 2012? 2. Whether the said loan facility was guaranteed by the 2nd Defendant? 3. Whether the said loan was disbursed to the benefit of the 1st Defendant? 4. Whether the Defendants breached the contract by not paying up the said loan? 5. What the outstanding balance is and 6. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to her claims? The matter was set down for hearing on 9th June 2014. It was further adjourned inthe presence of the parties to 29th July 2014. It was again adjourned in thepresence of the parties to 9th and 10th September 2014 for hearing.
In Ankumah v. City Investment Co.
Ltd (2007/2008) SCGLR 1064 it was held that a court wasentitled to give judgment if a party failed to appear after he had been given noticeof the proceedings.
For then it would be justifiable to assume that he did not wishto be heard.
In the case of Re: West Coast Dyeing and Another (1987/88) 2 GLR561, the court held that when a party refused to attend the trial and to testify, the court would be entitled to proceed with the trial and to determine the case onthe