GH - SPORTNET GHANA LTD & ANR VS FIDELITY BANK LTD.

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