SPORTNET GHANA LTD & ANR VS FIDELITY BANK LTD.
2016
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- JUSTICE DOREEN G. BOAKYEAGYEI,
- J (MRS.)
Areas of Law
- Contract Law
- Tort Law
2016
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The plaintiffs alleged negligence against the defendant bank for not discharging a mortgage, which led to a lost business opportunity. The court found that the defendants were justified in retaining the 2nd plaintiff's title deeds due to outstanding debt. The court also decided there was no binding obligation on the defendants to provide a bid security. The loss claimed by the plaintiffs was deemed too remote and speculative. The court concluded the plaintiffs did not meet the burden of proof and dismissed their claims.
This is a case according to Plaintiffs, of negligence on the part of the
Defendant Bank to discharge a mortgage facility on the 2nd Plaintiff’s
property to enable the 1st Plaintiff use the 2nd Plaintiff’s title deeds to
obtain a Bid Security from either the Defendant Bank or any other
bank. That all these happened after several letters to the Defendant
Bank to discharge the mortgage on the 2nd Plaintiff’s property, had
proved futile. This act of the Defendant Bank, according to Plaintiffs
thus resulted in the 1st Plaintiff’s loss of opportunity to bid for a contract
with Ghana Revenue Authority worth GH₵2,284,254.00, a major
source of income for the 1st Plaintiff, with an expected profit of
GH₵500,000.00. It is on this basis that the Plaintiffs instituted this
action on the 2nd of July, 2014 for among other things:
a. A declaration that the detention of the title deeds of 2nd Plaintiff
beyond the date of full payment of the loan is unlawful.
b. Damages pursuant to paragraph 23 of the Statement of Claim.
c. Interest at the prevailing bank rate on the damages claimed for such
a period as the Court shall deem appropriate.
d. General damages.
It is the case of the Plaintiffs that the 1st Plaintiff, a customer of the
Defendant Bank applied for and was duly granted a mortgage facility
of GH ₵120,000.00 in 2008 using the 2nd Plaintiff’s title deed covering
his property at Akplaku and this was duly executed and registered on
the title deed. This facility was however repaid by May, 2009, enabling
the 1st Plaintiff to yet again secure another loan facility of
GH₵40,000.00 using 2nd Plaintiff’s property. It is the case of the
Plaintiffs that the 2009, GH₵40,000.00 loan facility granted to the 1st
Plaintiff was never registered as a charge on the title deed and also the
2008 GH₵ 120,000.00 which was paid off as far back as 2009 was
never discharged after several requests by the 2nd Plaintiff, that is to
say, no Deed of Discharge was executed let alone registered,
encumbering the property of the 2nd Plaintiff.
According to the Plaintiffs the 1st Plaintiff had some challenges with
the repayment of the 2009, GH₵40,000.00 loan facility with specific
reference to the interest, however after complaining to the Defendant
Bank, the Defendant Bank resolved and communicated same to the
Plaintiffs to pay GH₵8,000.00 as full and final settlements of 1st
Plaintiff’s indebtedness. This was settled promptly by the Plaintiffs and
was never an issu