STANDARD CHARTEERED BANK VS EMMANUEL NARTEY SANGMORTEY
2015
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- JUSTICE JENNIFER A. DODOO (MRS)
- JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT
Areas of Law
- Contract Law
- Civil Procedure
- Evidence Law
- Property and Real Estate Law
2015
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The Plaintiff sued the Defendant (a former employee) for the outstanding balance and associated interests on a loan provided during employment, secured by property. The Plaintiff claimed that the loan's terms stipulated an increase in interest to the prevailing bank rate upon termination of employment, which was an agreed clause. The Defendant, who was terminated from employment, contended that his dismissal frustrated his obligation, denied a legal mortgage's existence, and argued that the action was statute-barred. The court upheld the Plaintiff's case, finding the Defendant liable for GH¢39,963.80 plus interest, and restrained him from dealings with the mortgaged property without Plaintiff's consent.
The Plaintiff disbursed to the Defendant, who was in their employment, an amount of GH¢37,120.00 at an interest rate of 7% per annum. It was the Plaintiff’s case that the agreement was to the effect that if the Defendant left the employment before the loan had been settled, the interest applicable to be charged on the loan would be at the prevailing bank rate.
According to the Plaintiff, the Defendant provided a residential property as security for the loan. Since the facility had not been redeemed, the Plaintiff sued for the following reliefs:
a. The Defendant pays the Plaintiff the amount of GH¢39,963.80 being the outstanding balance on the loan facility granted the Defendant.
b. Interest on the said amount from 13th July 2012 to the date of final payment at the prevailing bank rate.
c. Costs occasioned by this action
d. A perpetual injunction preventing the Defendant either by himself, privies and agents from letting out or disposing of the property used in securing the loan facility to any third party without the leave of the Honourable Court. The Defendant in his defence submitted that the loan agreement was contingent on his remaining in the Plaintiff’s employ. Having wrongfully terminated the Defendant’s employ, Plaintiff had frustrated the fulfillment of his obligations under the loan agreement.
The Defendant also denied that there was an existing legal mortgage over his residential property.
He also contended that in fulfillment of his obligations under the loan agreement he made equity payments to the Plaintiff. In pursuance of this, he had made payments of GH¢19,596.00 via cheque which though debited from his account had not been reflected in his loan account with the Plaintiff.
He also contended that the instant action was statute barred as the Plaintiff’s action was commenced in 2012, 6 years after the loan repayment ceased.
The issues settled for trial were:
1. Whether or not the parties agreed that the interest on the loan will be reversed to the prevailing commercial rate when the Defendant leaves the employ of Plaintiff?
2. Whether or not the Plaintiff could vary the loan interest without notice to the Defendant?
3. Whether or not the Defendant’s obligation to pay the loan was conditional upon his continuous employment with Plaintiff?
4. If so, whether or not Plaintiff frustrated Defendant’s ability to satisfy the loan?
5. Whether or not there is a registered mortgage executed between the parties?
6. Whether or not the