National Trust Holding Company v. Traffic Eye Limited and 1 Or
2019
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- HER LADYSHIP JUSTICE ANGELINA MENSAH-HOMIAH (MRS.)
Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Contract Law
2019
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
This case involves a dispute between the Plaintiff and Defendants regarding a bridge loan granted in 2013. The Plaintiff initially sought to recover GH¢200,741.16 with interest, while the Defendants counterclaimed, challenging the equity and terms of the loan. The parties agreed to settle their dispute out of court. The key terms of the settlement include: 1) The Defendant agreeing to pay GH¢80,000.00 to the Plaintiff as full and final settlement of all claims related to the 2013 Bridge Loan; 2) Both parties abandoning their respective claims and counterclaims; 3) No award of costs to either party; 4) Both parties relinquishing all other claims related to the subject matter of the suit. The court adopted these Terms of Settlement as a Consent Judgment, ordering the Defendants to pay the agreed sum of GH¢80,000.00 to the Plaintiff.
WHEREAS: A. The Plaintiff herein having on 5th March, 2018 issued out of the Registry of this Honourable Court a Writ of Summons and Statement of Claim against the Defendants for the following reliefs: i. Recovery of the sum of Two Hundred Thousand, Seven Hundred and Forty-One Cedis, Sixteen Pesewas (GH¢200, 741. 16) being amount due and owing the Plaintiff as at 30th September, 2017. ii.
Interest at the Commercial Bank Rate on the said amount from 11th July, 2012 till the date of final payment.
Costs including Lawyer’s fees.
B. Defendant herein also counterclaimed against the Plaintiff for the following reliefs: i. A declaration that given the Plaintiff’s conduct it is inequitable for the Plaintiff to treat the bridge funding as a normal loan given by a lender to a borrower with no responsibility by the lender to provide funds needed to make the bridge funded loan payable in the normal course of business.
An Order that the application of the interest rate in the bridge funding of 32% to the bridge funded loan effective 12th July 2013 was unjust and inequitable and the setting aside of the computation and a further Order that the just interest applicable should be restricted to computed at the Nine-One (91) day cycle.
An Order that given the conduct of the Plaintiff, the re-computation of the debt should in the first instance be treated as a bad and doubtful debt of the 1st Defendant.
A declaration that given the peculiar representation by the Plaintiff to the 1st and Defendants, the parties reasonably understood that failure by the Plaintiff to release the $250, 000. 00 business loan approved amount, would mean the bridge funding would be incapable of repayment or servicing by the 1st Defendant from the approved business plan.
v. An Order that given the conduct of the Plaintiff (i) It would be inequitable in the circumstance for the Plaintiff to be permitted to enforce the personal guarantee against the 2nd Defendant OR in the alternative(ii) That the guarantee shall not be enforced for a period of two (2) years from the date of Judgment and thereafter retired by the payment over an Eighteen (18) month period by equal instalment payment and interest shall not run during the two (2) year period from which the 2nd Defendant guarantee shall not be enforced and shall only become applicable to the outstanding balance where the equal instalment payment is breached by the 2nd Defendant.
C. The parties herein have agreed to the settlement of the dispute b