SINAPA ABA SAVINGS AND LOANS LIMITED v. PRIME MOTORS LIMITED & ANOR
2018
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- HER LADYSHIP ANGELINA MENSAH-HOMIAH (MRS.)
Areas of Law
- Contract Law
- Civil Procedure
- Evidence Law
- Banking and Finance Law
2018
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The Plaintiff bank sought to recover a loan of GHC 190,299.66 with interest from the Defendants. The 1st Defendant had been granted the loan in March 2014, with terms finalized in December 2014, which included an interest rate of 39% per annum. The court struck out the Defendants' statement of defense and counterclaim due to non-compliance with procedural orders. After evidence and witness testimonies, the court concluded that the loan was due, the interest rate was agreed upon, and the Defendants were in debt. The judgment was entered in favor of the Plaintiff, awarding GHC 189,033.68 with interest and additional costs.
JUDGMENT
This is a loan recovery action in which the Plaintiff bank seeks to recover the sum of GHC 190,299.66 and interest thereon from the Defendants as debtor and guarantor respectively. The case of the Plaintiff is that on 03/12/2014 it granted a credit facility of GHC 200,000.00 to the 1st Defendant at its request for a period of twenty-four months which has since elapsed. The 1st Defendant secured repayment of the loan with its machinery and also executed an equitable mortgage over its building; the 2nd Defendant executed a contract of indemnity. The Plaintiff stated that the Defendants have defaulted in fulfilling their respective obligations under the facility in issue. The Defendants caused a lawyer to enter appearance on their behalf, and he proceeded to file a statement of defence. Directions for the filing of witness statements were given on 12/02/2018, the defendants who failed to comply with the timelines, were given seven days extension of time within which to file their witness statements. That did not also work for them, on 16/04/2018, their lawyer informed the court that Prime Motors is virtually non-existent and he was finding it difficult to get the witnesses so as to file their statements. On 18/04/2018, counsel for the Plaintiff prayed the court to strike out the statement of defence and counterclaim of the Defendants for failing to comply with the orders given at the Case Management Conference. The court accordingly struck out the statement of defence and counterclaim filed by the Defendants on 31/03/2017 under Order 32 rule 7A (3) (b) of the High Court (Civil Procedure) (Amendment) Rules, 2014 C.I. 87. A date was set for the Plaintiff to prove its case, and counsel for the defendants attended court to cross-examine the plaintiff’s representative.
ISSUES FOR TRIAL
The issues set down for trial are:
Whether the Plaintiff granted a loan facility in the sum of GHC 200,000.00 to 1st Defendant? Whether it was agreed that the facility was to attract interest at 39% per annum?
Whether 1st Defendant executed an equitable mortgage over its building property as security for the loan?
Whether 2nd Defendant executed a contract of indemnity in favour of the Plaintiff in respect of the loan facility?
Whether Plaintiff and Defendants entered into any loan agreement in October, 2016 which varied the loan agreement?
Whether the Defendants are indebted to the plaintiff in the sum of GHC 190,299.66 as at 31st December, 2016?
Whether the Plaint