SINAPI ABA SAVINGS & LOANS LIMITED VS FATHER’S LEGACY CONSTRUCTION & BLOCK
2019
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- MRS. ANGELINA MENSAHHOMIAH
- J.
Areas of Law
- Contract Law
- Evidence Law
2019
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The Plaintiff Bank sued the Defendants for defaulting on a GH₵500,000 loan, secured by properties and guaranteed by the 2nd Defendant. The Defendants claimed the loan terms were unconscionable, contributing to their inability to repay. The High Court found the Defendants indebted to the tune of GH₵783,372.48, concluding they breached the loan terms. It held that the loan's unconscionability was unsubstantiated, affirmed the Plaintiff’s reliefs, and ordered the judicial sale of the secured property to settle the debt.
On 29th September, 2017 the Plaintiff Bank took out a Writ of Summons against the
Defendants as principal debtor and guarantor respectively, in respect of a loan of
GH₵500,000.00 granted to the 1st Defendant on 14th April 2015 upon agreed terms. The
Plaintiff alleged that re-payment was to commence on 14th July 2015 to 14th June, 2017. In
addition to the guarantee provided by the 2nd Defendant, the Plaintiff averred that the facility
was secured by various landed properties as well as the 1st Defendant’s stock-in-trade.
The Defendants admitted the grant of the facility to the 1st Defendant, the guarantee provided
by the 2nd Defendant as well as the various securities provided, namely:
a) 0.699 Acre of land situate at Tuba- Kokrobite, Accra, also known as Iron city, with
registration number LVD27029A/10 belonging to 2nd Defendant.
b) 0.342 Acre of land situate at New Bortianor belonging to 2nd Defendant.
c) Stock held in 1st Defendant’s business.
The terms of the loan were not traversed by the Defendants, but they contended that those
terms are unconscionable and have contributed to the inability of the Defendants to make repayments
in accordance with the terms of the Loan Agreement.
As a result of the failure of the Defendants to re-pay the debt together with the accrued interest,
the Plaintiff sought the following reliefs:
a) An order for recovery of the sum of GH₵878,333.44 being balance due and owing by
Defendant on account of credit facilities extended to Defendants by Plaintiff
repayment of which was secured by Defendants but settlement of which Defendants
have failed to make good several demand notices notwithstanding.
b) Interest on the said GH₵878,333.44 at the current bank lending rate, from 14th June
2017 until date of final payment.
c) In the alternative an order for the judicial sale of 0.699 acre of land at Tuba-Kokrobite
with forced sale value of GH₵2,100,000.00 belonging to 2nd Defendant which was
used as collateral for the loan facility.
d) Costs including legal fees assessed at 10% of the aggregate sum due and payable under
the facilities.
The issues set down for trial are:
1. Whether or not the Defendants are indebted to the Plaintiff to the tune of GH₵878,333.44?
2. Whether or not the Defendants breached the terms of the loan agreement?
3. Whether or not the Defendants were to repay the loan from all other businesses they were
engaging in including but not limited to the Father’s Legacy School?
4. Whe