STANBIC BANK GH LTD. vs DANIEL AGUALEY AMANOR
2024
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- HER LADYSHIP JUSTICE SHEILA MINTA
Areas of Law
- Contract Law
- Civil Procedure
- Evidence Law
2024
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The Plaintiff filed a suit against the Defendant for failing to honor a Finance Lease Agreement. The court found that while the Plaintiff had the right to terminate the lease and repossess the truck upon the Defendant's default, the method of seizure and sale did not comply with statutory requirements, rendering the actions unlawful. Consequently, the court ruled that the Plaintiff could not adequately prove the Defendant's total indebtedness. Both parties were awarded respective sums for compensation and damages.
INTRODUCTION
The Plaintiff offered to the Defendant a vehicle and Asset financing facility of GHS624, 720. 00 for the purchase of a new DAF truck with trailer.
And for the said facility the parties executed a Finance Lease Agreement on 27th March, 2018. The Plaintiff further granted the Defendant an Overdraft facility of GHS500, 000. 00 with an interest rate of 27%and a further Bank Guarantee of GHS500, 000. 00. According to the Plaintiff the Defendant failed to honour his obligations and proceeded to sell the DAF truck in liquidation of part of Defendant’s debt and also instituted this suit on 25th May, 2019. But the Defendant’s story is that yes, he took the said facility from the Plaintiff to be paid within a period of forty-eight (48) months and the cancellation of the contract before the tenor and the seizure and subsequent sale of the truck were all unlawfully done.
According to the Defendant the Plaintiff has not been able to show how much is exactly owed the Plaintiff by the Defendant, having failed to attach Defendant’s statement of account.
The Defendant however does not show that he has paid off the facility though he also filed a Counterclaimed.
He Counterclaimed against Plaintiff for unlawful seizure and sale of the Truck and damages for loss of use of same.
SUMMARY OF PLAINTIFF’S CASE The Plaintiff’s case is that on 22nd March, 2018 it offered to the Defendant a Vehicle and Asset Financing Facility (Finance Lease) for the sum of GHS624, 720. 00 for the purchase of a DAF truck for the Defendant to use for his business.
According to the Plaintiff the Finance Lease was for a non-cancellable period of 48 months from the date of first draw down.
That by the terms of the agreement the said Truck would be owned by the Plaintiff and same subsequently transferred to the Defendant at the end of the agreement.
The parties also agreed that the Plaintiff could repossess same when rental repayment fall in arrears.
The said facility was to attract an interest of 27% per annum plus a 5% interest rate upon default in payments.
The Plaintiff posited that in addition to the said Finance Lease it gave to the Defendant an Overdraft in the sum of GHS500, 000. 00 and a Guarantee of another GHS500, 000. 00. By the Plaintiff’s case the security provided by Defendant for the facilities were: First-ranking legal mortgage over a 4-bedroom residential property located at Baatsona and owned by Defendant with a forced sale value of GH1, 063, 950. 00 and an open