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
- Contract Law
- Banking and Finance Law
- Civil Procedure
2019
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
In a commercial loan dispute before the High Court in Accra, presided over by Her Ladyship Justice Angelina Mensah-Homiah, the Plaintiff (represented by Robert B. Quartey of Oasis Law Office and Consult) sued the 1st and 2nd Defendants (represented by R. A. Codjoe Law Offices) on 5 March 2018 to recover GH a2200,741.16, interest at the Commercial Bank Rate from 11 July 2012, and costs, arising from a 2013 bridge loan. The Defendants counterclaimed, alleging inequitable treatment of the bridge funding as a normal loan, contesting the application of a 32% interest rate effective 12 July 2013, urging recalculation on a 91-day cycle, seeking classification of the debt as bad and doubtful, and relief from enforcement of a personal guarantee. They also argued that failure to release an approved US$250,000 business loan meant the bridge funding could not be serviced under the plan. On 3 April 2019, the parties executed terms of settlement: the Defendants agreed to pay GH a280,000; both parties relinquished claims and counterclaims; and no costs would be awarded. The Court adopted the terms as a consent judgment and ordered payment accordingly.
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