SG-SSB BANK LTD VS DIANA ELLIS AIDOO
2016
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- JUSTICE DOREEN G. BOAKYE- AGYEI
Areas of Law
- Contract Law
- Banking and Finance Law
- Civil Procedure
2016
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
This case involves a dispute between a bank (Plaintiff) and a borrower (Defendant) over two finance lease agreements for bakery equipment and a delivery van. The Defendant defaulted on payments, claiming equipment malfunction. Despite being given opportunities, the Defendant failed to appear in court to defend their case or pursue their counterclaim. The court ruled in favor of the Plaintiff, allowing recovery of the leased assets and rental arrears, with interest. The case highlights principles of contract enforcement, burden of proof, and the consequences of failing to appear in court. It also touches on the doctrine of frustration in contract law, though the Defendant failed to prove its applicability in this case.
The Plaintiffs sued the Defendant on 24/10/2013 claiming the reliefs endorsed on the Writ of Summons.
The Reliefs as endorsed on the Writ of Summons for which Plaintiff claimed against the Defendant were as follows; i. Recovery of the Mac-Adams M240 Rotary Oven-Gas Fired and Hyundai H-1 Delivery Van with registration number GC 7930-11 from the Defendant.
Recovery of the sum of GHC143, 887. 51 (One Hundred and Forty-Three Thousand Eight Hundred and Eighty-seven Ghana Cedis and Fifty-One Pesewas) being rental arrears of the Mac-Adams M240 Rotary Oven Gas Fired and Hyundai H-1 Delivery Van with registration number GC 7930-11 from the Defendant.
Interest on the said sum of GHC143, 887. 51 (One Hundred and Forty-Three Thousand Eight Hundred and Eighty-seven Ghana Cedis and Fifty-One Pesewas) at a rate of 6% above the lessor’s base rate from 15th July, 2013 till date of final payment.
The Defendant having been duly served on 13/12/2013, failed to file any process and Default Judgment was entered against the Defendant.
Upon the application of Counsel for Defendant, the Default Judgment was set aside on 20/03/2014 and Defendant’s Statement of Defense and Counterclaim were admitted by the Court for the matter to take its normal course.
The Defense was filed on 15/04/2014 and therein was a Counterclaim as follows; Defendant relies on and repeats the averments contained in paragraphs 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17 herein and Counterclaims against the Plaintiff as follows: i. A declaration that the Plaintiff’s refusal, failure and neglect to supply and or deliver a Mac-Adams Rotary Oven-Gas Fired contrary to the clear and unambiguous terms and conditions of the finance lease agreement was in breach of its obligations towards the Defendant which breach frustrated the contract; ii.
An Order directed at the Plaintiff to apply the monthly installments deductions made in respect of the Mac-Adams Rotary Oven-Gas Fired to liquidate her indebtedness in respect of the Hyundai H-100 Delivery Van iii.
An order for general and special damages for breach of contract iv.
Legal cost; v. Any further orders that this Honourable Court deems fit On 07/11/2014, Plaintiff filed a Reply and Defence to the Counterclaim and the matter was set down for a Pre-trial to enable the parties settle the matter amicably.
The matter could not be settled and same was set down for trial.
The issues as set down for trial by the Pre-Trial Judge were as follows; 1. Whe