SELINA ASANTE v. HFC BANK GHANA LIMITED
June 10, 2016
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- SAMUEL K. A. ASIEDU
Areas of Law
- Banking and Finance Law
- Contract Law
- Evidence Law
- Civil Procedure
- Property and Real Estate Law
June 10, 2016
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
Selina Asante sued HFC Bank seeking a refund of GH₵27,766.74 as alleged excess repayment, an order stopping further debits, a comprehensive account statement, and the appointment of an independent auditor. HFC Bank entered appearance, denied the allegation, and counterclaimed for GH₵33,330.45 with interest and, in the alternative, a judicial sale of the mortgaged property. The court found undisputed facts: Asante received a GH₵53,000 mortgage in March 2007 to buy a five-bedroom house at Bejuahum, New Achimota, secured by a legal mortgage, and the loan was disbursed and later registered. Applying Section 17 of the Evidence Act and Supreme Court authority, the court held Asante bore the burden of proving overpayment and led no credible evidence. Bank records showed a debit balance despite a GH₵25,000 payment, and her cross-examination admissions confirmed continued indebtedness and non-payment since 10 September 2013. The court dismissed her claims and entered judgment for HFC with contractual interest and costs.
JUDGMENT
By a writ of summons the plaintiff claims against the defendant
a. Immediate refund of the sum of GH₵27,766.74 being excess loan repayment made.
b. An order of the court directed at the defendant to stop forthwith the debiting of the plaintiff’s loan account.
c. An order for the furnishing of a comprehensive statement of account starting from the day the facility was granted.
d. An appointment of an independent auditor to go into the accounts of the loan.
e. Any other order(s) as to this Honourable Court may seem meet.
The defendant entered appearance after service of the writ and the statement of claim and then filed a defence in which the defendant also counterclaims against the plaintiff for:
a. The sum of GH33, 330.45 due and owing the defendant by the plaintiff under the facility.
b. Interest on the aforementioned sum from 10th September, 2013 to date of final judgment.
c. Further or in the alternative an order for the judicial sale of the property: 5 (five) bedroom single storey detached house situate at Bejuahum New Achimota, Accra.
d. Cost including counsel’s fees.
After the failure of pre-trial settlement the matter was referred for trial. The parties were therefore ordered to file their witness statements after which the case came up for hearing.
From the pleadings filed by the parties the court finds that the following facts are not in dispute:
That the defendant is a financial institution registered under the laws of Ghana and engaged in the business of universal banking. The court also finds that the plaintiff was at all times material to the suit a customer of the defendant bank.
That the plaintiff applied to the defendant for and was granted a mortgage loan in the sum of ₵530,000,000 now expressed as GH₵53,000 in March, 2007 to enable her purchase a five bedroom single storey detached house situate at Bejuahum, New Achimota Accra.
That as a pre-condition for the disbursement of the loan the plaintiff duly executed a facility letter dated the 19th June, 2007 exhibit D and 1 herein.
The plaintiff has also admitted that the said facility was secured with a legal mortgage over the said house. This had been exhibited as exhibit 3 herein. The plaintiff has also admitted that in fulfillment of other pre-disbursement conditions under the facility, the plaintiff deposited the title deeds dated 30th June 2006, exhibit 2 herein, and the mortgage deed dated 13th February, 2007 with the defendant. The court finds that the mortga