SG GHANA LTD VS CCTC LTD & 1 ORS
2018
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- JUSTICE JANAPARE A. BARTELS-KODWO (MRS)
Areas of Law
- Contract Law
- Evidence Law
- Commercial Law
2018
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The Plaintiff bank sued the Defendants for the repayment of GH¢1,698,681.86 from a loan facility. The Defendants did not deny taking the facility but claimed that its repayment had been extended orally due to restructuring needs. The court determined the issues based on the preponderance of evidence presented, relying mainly on documentary evidence and ruled in favor of the Plaintiff, granting the sum claimed along with interest and ordering a judicial sale of the Defendant’s mortgaged property. Costs were also assessed in favor of the Plaintiff.
Plaintiff claims from the Defendants jointly and severally for the following:
1. Recovery of the sum of One Million Six Hundred and Ninety-Eight Thousand Six Hundred and Eighty-One Ghana Cedis Eighty-Six Pesewas (GH¢1,698,681.86) against the Defendants jointly and severally.
2. Interest on the said sum of One Million Six Hundred and Ninety-Eight Thousand Six Hundred and Eighty-One Ghana Cedis Eighty-Six Pesewas (GH¢1,698,681.86) at a rate which is 6% above the prevailing bank rate from 6th June,2016 calculated on compound basis till date of final payment against the Defendants jointly and severally.
3. Judicial sale of the 2nd Defendant’s commercial property at the Osu in satisfaction of the Judgment debt.
The Plaintiff’s case is that it is a bank duly registered under the laws of our country. The 1st Defendant is a limited liability company and a customer of the Plaintiff bank. It asserts that at the 1st Defendant’s request on or about 3rd September, 2014 it granted it an overdraft facility in the sum of Three Million Ghana Cedis (GH¢3,000,000.00) and a bank guarantee in the sum of Five Hundred Thousand Ghana Cedis (GH¢500,000.00).
Plaintiff avers the terms and conditions governing the grant of the said facilities are contained in a facility letter dated 3rd September, 2014 by which terms and conditions both facilities expired on 31st January, 2015. Plaintiff asserts that by the terms and conditions of the agreement any amount due and unpaid during the tenor of the facility shall attract a penal interest at the rate of 6% per annum above the prevailing bank rate.
As security for the repayment of the said facilities, the 2nd Defendant mortgaged its commercial property at Osu, Accra to the Plaintiff. And that though both facilities have expired the Defendants have failed or refused to repay same. As at 6th June, 2016 the quantum of the Defendants’ indebtedness stood at One Million Six Hundred and Ninety-Eight Thousand Six Hundred and Eighty-One Ghana Cedis Eighty-Six Pesewas (GH¢1,698,681.86). The interest exigible on the facilities being computed on compound basis as per the terms of the agreement.
The Plaintiff avers that on 16th June, it received a letter from Pricewaterhouse Coopers (Ghana) Limited who claimed to be acting for and on behalf of the 1st Defendant as Receivers/Managers having been appointed as such by the High Court. They requested it to submit any claims it had against the 1st Defendant to them as Receivers/Managers. Plaintiff a