SOCIETE GENERALE GHANA LTD VS LIFESTYLE CONSTRUCTION LTD.
2016
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- JUSTICE DOREEN G. BOAKYE-AGYEI, J (MRS)
Areas of Law
- Contract Law
- Evidence Law
- Commercial Law
2016
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The Plaintiff, a banking company, sued the Defendant, an engineering company, for the outstanding balance of Ghc44,497.38 plus interest on a loan granted to purchase a defective Wheel Loader. Despite the Defendant's effort to remedy this issue by returning the loader to the supplier, F.S.U Company Ltd, and a settlement for the supplier to assume the debt, payments ceased. The Court held that the Plaintiff failed to adequately demonstrate the debt owed due to lack of detailed evidence of payments made by the Defendant and F.S.U. Consequently, the Plaintiff's suit was dismissed.
By an endorsement on its Writ of Summons dated the 20th day of November, 2014 the Plaintiff claimed the following Reliefs against the Defendant:
a. The Defendant pay the Plaintiff the amount of Ghs44,497.38 being the outstanding balance on the loan facility granted it. Interest on the said amount from 30th June, 2014 to the date of final payment at the rate of 32.50% per annum
c. Costs occasioned by the action
From the facts as presented to the Court, Plaintiff is a Limited Liability Company incorporated under the laws of the Republic of Ghana and engaged in the business of banking whilst the Defendant is a Limited Liability Company incorporated under the laws of Ghana and engaged in the business of building and civil engineering.
The Plaintiff’s claim as per its Statement of Claim dated 20th November, 2014 was that by a contract in writing dated 24th June, 2010 and at the Defendants own request the Plaintiff approved a loan facility of Ninety-Three Thousand Two Hundred and Forty Ghana Cedis, (Ghc93,240.00) to the Defendant for the purpose of acquiring a DG966 Wheel Loader to enable the Defendant support its operations. That it was expressly agreed between the parties herein that the facility was to attract a rate of interest of 26.5% per annum and same was to be amortized over the period of the loan commencing from the date of disbursement. The Plaintiff further stated that it was also agreed between the Plaintiff and the Defendant that in the event of a default, any sum unpaid will attract a penal interest rate of 6% per annum above the interest rate of 26.50%. It is the case of the Plaintiff that the Defendant provided security to the Plaintiff over the DG966 Wheel Loader which is in the joint names of the Plaintiff and the Defendant herein. The Plaintiff further submits that contrary to the terms under which the loan facility was granted to the Defendant, it has refused to service the said facility with the result that the balances outstanding have become un-serviced debts.
The sum of the Defendant’s defence is that it was the Plaintiff who initiated the loan process by calling to enquire from Defendant if it needed a loan and the Defendant needing a Wheel Loader for their business informed the Plaintiff so. That Defendant having received a quotation from a company, Plaintiff through an officer Christian Badu intimated that Plaintiff preferred dealing with another customer of theirs by name F.S.U Company Ltd that dealt with similar equipment. That