ROYAL BENEFICIARIES' ASSOCIATION VS DELECTA AHWIRENG & KWAME K. ABOAGYE & YAA SERWAH
2018
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- JUSTICE K. A. GYIMAH
Areas of Law
- Contract Law
- Evidence Law
- Corporate Law
- Banking and Finance Law
- Civil Procedure
2018
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
In this Ghana High Court decision by Justice K. A. Gyimah, Royal Beneficiaries Association, a welfare association of cloth sellers at Makola market, sued Obenewa Ahwireng (1st defendant) and two alleged guarantors to recover ₵233,200,000 as the outstanding balance on a purported ₵500,000,000 loan. The Association claimed it paid the 1st defendant partly by cheque and cash pursuant to a Financial Assistance Agreement (Exhibit A). The defence maintained the agreement was with Lectad Ltd., where Ahwireng was managing director, and that the plaintiff’s cheques were dishonoured; later, Agricultural Development Bank (ADB) granted facilities to members organized in groups, including Ahwireng and Lectad. The court found no binding agreement with Ahwireng personally, no credible proof of cash disbursement, cheques dishonoured, and no evidence of bank default or authorization empowering the plaintiff to sue on ADB’s facilities. All claims were dismissed; a declaration was granted that defendants were not indebted; overpayment and damages counterclaims failed; costs of GH₵5,000 were awarded to the 1st defendant.
This is a matter which has stayed in the court system for far too long and it is because of cases like this that sometimes people are bold to criticize the judiciary for delays in the delivery of justice.
The writ was issued as far back as February 2003, about 15 years ago.
It must be stated that most of the delays that occurred can be placed squarely at the doorsteps of the parties and their counsel.
Counsel for the plaintiff in his address rightly captures the chequered history of this case on page 2 in the following terms: “The trial of this case has had a very checkered history passing through the hands of at least four judges.
The plaintiff and its two witnesses gave evidence as far back as 2005 – between April and June.
After that there was a break of about 3 years … The defendants … opened their defence in February 2008. After only one sitting the 1st defendant never appeared in court to continue her evidence until 20th July 2017 – an interval of over nine years. ”When parties had duly filed their addresses and it was time for me to fix a date for judgment, it came to my notice that some of the exhibits were not in the exhibit file.
Neither the parties nor their counsel could help the court with copies of the exhibits as they could also not locate their copies.
I therefore directed the parties to file affidavits consenting to the delivery of judgment although the said exhibits could not be found as all the parties were agreed on the contents of the exhibits.
The parties duly filed the said affidavits but shortly before judgment was given, copies of exhibits 3 and 4 were located on the docket.
Plaintiff’s Case It is the plaintiff’s case that it is a welfare association comprised mainly of cloth sellers at Makola market.
The plaintiff contracts loans from commercial banks and gives individual loans to members of the association.
This is so because most of their members could not provide the security the commercial banks required before giving loans to individuals but as an association, they were able to provide the requisite securities to the banks so that their members could assess loans from the banks to boost their working capital.
It is the plaintiff’s case that they sign an agreement with each member with respect to the amount each of them required.
Such agreements are always guaranteed by two members of the association.
When the agreement is signed with a member, the plaintiff will issue cheques to each member and introduce them to